<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic PARDISO in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/PARDISO/m-p/1090939#M23259</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I have been using PARDISO for a while and it is really good.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I have the solver linked up to an old Fortran program that generates a standard stiffness matrix for a beam.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I was looking at the output for a timber beam that is modelled as 4 uniform lengths -- I get the first four modes as the same value, but if I perturb the lengths slightly I get 4 different values that are now closer to the measured values provided I play with the constants a bit.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Interesting problem, I suppose I should print out the structures matrix and look for some form of symmetry that is providing the first answer.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Any thoughts would be appreciated?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;John&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:24:20 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>JohnNichols</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-04-24T17:24:20Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PARDISO</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/PARDISO/m-p/1090939#M23259</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have been using PARDISO for a while and it is really good.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I have the solver linked up to an old Fortran program that generates a standard stiffness matrix for a beam.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I was looking at the output for a timber beam that is modelled as 4 uniform lengths -- I get the first four modes as the same value, but if I perturb the lengths slightly I get 4 different values that are now closer to the measured values provided I play with the constants a bit.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Interesting problem, I suppose I should print out the structures matrix and look for some form of symmetry that is providing the first answer.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Any thoughts would be appreciated?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;John&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:24:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/PARDISO/m-p/1090939#M23259</guid>
      <dc:creator>JohnNichols</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-24T17:24:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi Nichols,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/PARDISO/m-p/1090940#M23260</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Nichols,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;As i understand, there are&amp;nbsp;some factors may be considering here.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;1.&amp;nbsp; the nature of problem, which may be disturbed by slightly different of input. which may related your models.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;2. about floating point computation and Numerical Reproducibility .&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;in MKL we had introduce one CNR functionality, please see MKL user guide or&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;the on-line article. &amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/introduction-to-the-conditional-numerical-reproducibility-cnr"&gt;https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/introduction-to-the-conditional-numerical-reproducibility-cnr&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;If considering the CNR, you may try the functionality and let see if any change.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Best Regards,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Ying&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 03:10:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/PARDISO/m-p/1090940#M23260</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ying_H_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-26T03:10:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dear H Ying:</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/PARDISO/m-p/1090941#M23261</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Dear H Ying:&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the response. &amp;nbsp;No -- the problem is the beam is 2 metres long, the beam theory model is set up with 0.5 m long beam elements. If I run FEAST on the structures and mass matrix as an eigenvalue problem then I get eigenvalues in groups of 3 - you can see it in the picture, although here I have perturbed the lengths slightly so they are not all exactly the same -- in reality no stochastic process has perfect means and zero standard.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;It is reasonably easy with FEAST to work out which equations in the structure apply to each eigenvalue. &amp;nbsp;I am reading this correctly.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;John&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/PARDISO/m-p/1090941#M23261</guid>
      <dc:creator>JohnNichols</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-28T20:25:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi Jonh,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/PARDISO/m-p/1090942#M23262</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Jonh,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Could you provide us the input sparse matrix and the parameters you use&amp;nbsp;when call&amp;nbsp;PARDISO so we can debug the exact issue?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Best Regards,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Ying &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2017 03:48:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/PARDISO/m-p/1090942#M23262</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ying_H_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-05-15T03:48:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

