You can subscribe to this list here.
2001 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}
(1) 
_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}
(1) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}


2002 
_{Jan}
(1) 
_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}
(1) 
_{Aug}
(1) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}
(1) 
_{Dec}

2003 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}
(1) 
_{Aug}
(1) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}
(83) 
_{Nov}
(57) 
_{Dec}
(111) 
2004 
_{Jan}
(38) 
_{Feb}
(121) 
_{Mar}
(107) 
_{Apr}
(241) 
_{May}
(102) 
_{Jun}
(190) 
_{Jul}
(239) 
_{Aug}
(158) 
_{Sep}
(184) 
_{Oct}
(193) 
_{Nov}
(47) 
_{Dec}
(68) 
2005 
_{Jan}
(190) 
_{Feb}
(105) 
_{Mar}
(99) 
_{Apr}
(65) 
_{May}
(92) 
_{Jun}
(250) 
_{Jul}
(197) 
_{Aug}
(128) 
_{Sep}
(101) 
_{Oct}
(183) 
_{Nov}
(186) 
_{Dec}
(42) 
2006 
_{Jan}
(102) 
_{Feb}
(122) 
_{Mar}
(154) 
_{Apr}
(196) 
_{May}
(181) 
_{Jun}
(281) 
_{Jul}
(310) 
_{Aug}
(198) 
_{Sep}
(145) 
_{Oct}
(188) 
_{Nov}
(134) 
_{Dec}
(90) 
2007 
_{Jan}
(134) 
_{Feb}
(181) 
_{Mar}
(157) 
_{Apr}
(57) 
_{May}
(81) 
_{Jun}
(204) 
_{Jul}
(60) 
_{Aug}
(37) 
_{Sep}
(17) 
_{Oct}
(90) 
_{Nov}
(122) 
_{Dec}
(72) 
2008 
_{Jan}
(130) 
_{Feb}
(108) 
_{Mar}
(160) 
_{Apr}
(38) 
_{May}
(83) 
_{Jun}
(42) 
_{Jul}
(75) 
_{Aug}
(16) 
_{Sep}
(71) 
_{Oct}
(57) 
_{Nov}
(59) 
_{Dec}
(152) 
2009 
_{Jan}
(73) 
_{Feb}
(213) 
_{Mar}
(67) 
_{Apr}
(40) 
_{May}
(46) 
_{Jun}
(82) 
_{Jul}
(73) 
_{Aug}
(57) 
_{Sep}
(108) 
_{Oct}
(36) 
_{Nov}
(153) 
_{Dec}
(77) 
2010 
_{Jan}
(42) 
_{Feb}
(171) 
_{Mar}
(150) 
_{Apr}
(6) 
_{May}
(22) 
_{Jun}
(34) 
_{Jul}
(31) 
_{Aug}
(38) 
_{Sep}
(32) 
_{Oct}
(59) 
_{Nov}
(13) 
_{Dec}
(62) 
2011 
_{Jan}
(114) 
_{Feb}
(139) 
_{Mar}
(126) 
_{Apr}
(51) 
_{May}
(53) 
_{Jun}
(29) 
_{Jul}
(41) 
_{Aug}
(29) 
_{Sep}
(35) 
_{Oct}
(87) 
_{Nov}
(42) 
_{Dec}
(20) 
2012 
_{Jan}
(111) 
_{Feb}
(66) 
_{Mar}
(35) 
_{Apr}
(59) 
_{May}
(71) 
_{Jun}
(32) 
_{Jul}
(11) 
_{Aug}
(48) 
_{Sep}
(60) 
_{Oct}
(87) 
_{Nov}
(16) 
_{Dec}
(38) 
2013 
_{Jan}
(5) 
_{Feb}
(19) 
_{Mar}
(41) 
_{Apr}
(47) 
_{May}
(14) 
_{Jun}
(32) 
_{Jul}
(18) 
_{Aug}
(68) 
_{Sep}
(9) 
_{Oct}
(42) 
_{Nov}
(12) 
_{Dec}
(10) 
2014 
_{Jan}
(14) 
_{Feb}
(139) 
_{Mar}
(137) 
_{Apr}
(66) 
_{May}
(72) 
_{Jun}
(142) 
_{Jul}
(70) 
_{Aug}
(31) 
_{Sep}
(39) 
_{Oct}
(98) 
_{Nov}
(133) 
_{Dec}
(44) 
2015 
_{Jan}
(70) 
_{Feb}
(27) 
_{Mar}
(36) 
_{Apr}
(11) 
_{May}
(15) 
_{Jun}
(70) 
_{Jul}
(30) 
_{Aug}
(63) 
_{Sep}
(18) 
_{Oct}
(15) 
_{Nov}
(42) 
_{Dec}
(29) 
2016 
_{Jan}
(37) 
_{Feb}
(48) 
_{Mar}
(59) 
_{Apr}
(28) 
_{May}
(30) 
_{Jun}
(43) 
_{Jul}
(47) 
_{Aug}
(14) 
_{Sep}
(21) 
_{Oct}
(26) 
_{Nov}
(10) 
_{Dec}
(2) 
2017 
_{Jan}
(26) 
_{Feb}
(26) 
_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 




1

2

3

4

5

6

7
(4) 
8
(4) 
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16
(7) 
17
(5) 
18

19
(2) 
20

21
(2) 
22
(5) 
23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30



From: Jan Simon <jan.simon@gm...>  20110622 08:24:24

> Using two separate plot commands (first plot, then replot) will generate two separate figures in the output file. On my system (gnuplot 4.4.3 on OS X) the above command generates a pdf file with two pages: the first contains a plot with only the data points, the second has both the data and the function. What happens if you plot the data and the line using just a single plot command? > As i pointed out in my first post gnuplot then don't draw f(x) to the boundary. See http://www.plotshare.com/index.ws/plot/239541263 for an example. Jan 
From: Jan Simon <jan.simon@gm...>  20110622 08:22:09

> The line is drawn to cover the range of the data. > The plot boundary is drawn (by default) at the next tick mark. > If you want these two things to be the same, then say > set autoscale fix > or more specifically > set autoscale xfixmax With autoscale fix my last datapoint is drawn on the boundary, that's not my intention. I would like to have it like in the second example and i didn't expected that using autoscale (or xrange [0:*] like in my case) prevents that f(x) is drawn to the boundary. > The command sequence above will produce 2 pages of output. > The first page will have the data; the second page will have both > the data and the function. I've checked here that it works as > expected. Do you really want a separate "replot" command? Actually the replot thing is just a workaround for the upper problem/feature. As i want to include the graph in a latexdocument using the packages egplot or gnuplottex the problem is that only the first page of the pdf is shown. Jan 
From: Ethan Merritt <merritt@u.washington.edu>  20110622 00:45:37

On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 05:15:40 pm Jan Simon wrote: > > The plot range is by default extended to the next axis tick mark, > > in your case at x=70. > > > > If you don't want it to do that, you can say > > set autoscale fix > > My concern is the red line (f(x)), not the green dots (data), they are > fine. The line is drawn to cover the range of the data. The plot boundary is drawn (by default) at the next tick mark. If you want these two things to be the same, then say set autoscale fix or more specifically set autoscale xfixmax > > That doesn't ring any bells. > > Can't you just output pdf to begin with? (set term pdf) > > Using set term pdf, plot data and replot f(x) gives me an output only > with data, f(x) is missing. The command sequence above will produce 2 pages of output. The first page will have the data; the second page will have both the data and the function. I've checked here that it works as expected. Do you really want a separate "replot" command? Ethan 
From: Lutz Maibaum <lutz.maibaum@gm...>  20110622 00:37:17

On Jun 21, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Jan Simon wrote: > Using set term pdf, plot data and replot f(x) gives me an output only > with data, f(x) is missing. Using two separate plot commands (first plot, then replot) will generate two separate figures in the output file. On my system (gnuplot 4.4.3 on OS X) the above command generates a pdf file with two pages: the first contains a plot with only the data points, the second has both the data and the function. What happens if you plot the data and the line using just a single plot command? Lutz 
From: Jan Simon <jan.simon@gm...>  20110622 00:15:48

> The plot range is by default extended to the next axis tick mark, > in your case at x=70. > > If you don't want it to do that, you can say > set autoscale fix My concern is the red line (f(x)), not the green dots (data), they are fine. > That doesn't ring any bells. > Can't you just output pdf to begin with? (set term pdf) Using set term pdf, plot data and replot f(x) gives me an output only with data, f(x) is missing. Jan 
From: Ethan A Merritt <sfeam@us...>  20110621 23:41:06

On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 03:57:04 pm Jan Simon wrote: > Hi, > > today i've got stuck with a problem in gnuplot 4.4.2. On freenode i was > suggested to post it here as it seem to be a bug. Here is my problem, > some data and a function: > > http://www.plotshare.com/index.ws/plot/239541263 > > In the first example using autoscale the function ends on the sheet > without reaching the boarder, when using x/yrange, it shows the right > behaviour. The plot range is by default extended to the next axis tick mark, in your case at x=70. If you don't want it to do that, you can say set autoscale fix > As i want to use autoscale (with set xrange [0:*]) and as output eps, i > tried to find a workaround. Using replot f(x) works but i ran in another > problem, as epstopdf don't convert the resulting eps right, the pdf is > missing the function (this might be a epstopdf problem). That doesn't ring any bells. Can't you just output pdf to begin with? (set term pdf) Ethan 
From: Jan Simon <jan.simon@gm...>  20110621 22:57:12

Hi, today i've got stuck with a problem in gnuplot 4.4.2. On freenode i was suggested to post it here as it seem to be a bug. Here is my problem, some data and a function: http://www.plotshare.com/index.ws/plot/239541263 In the first example using autoscale the function ends on the sheet without reaching the boarder, when using x/yrange, it shows the right behaviour. As i want to use autoscale (with set xrange [0:*]) and as output eps, i tried to find a workaround. Using replot f(x) works but i ran in another problem, as epstopdf don't convert the resulting eps right, the pdf is missing the function (this might be a epstopdf problem). Thank you, Jan 
From: Tatsuro MATSUOKA <tmacchant3@ya...>  20110619 22:56:29

Hello I have updated cvs binaries for cygwin, mingw, and djgpp. http://www.tatsuromatsuoka.com/gnuplot/Eng/cygbin/ http://www.tatsuromatsuoka.com/gnuplot/Eng/winbin/ Regards Tatsuro 
From: Daniel J Sebald <daniel.sebald@ie...>  20110619 07:58:28

On 06/16/2011 03:59 PM, Ethan A Merritt wrote: > On Thursday, June 16, 2011 01:06:23 pm Daniel J Sebald wrote: >> The bivariat.dem formula still has the problem of >> recursion/stack depth, in this case: >> >> recursion depth limit exceeded > > The depth limit was set rather arbitrary at 250 on the logic that > "nobody would need more than that, right?" > > It would be easy enough to make it userdefined. > If you increase it to something much larger and the program > runs out of stack space, then at least you know it's your own > fault. I suppose that is a solution. Or could remove the limit and see how gnuplot behaves when memory is used up. That solution doesn't address the inefficient method of integration, but seeing as the feature probably isn't used often the solution might work well enough. Dan 
From: Tatsuro MATSUOKA <tmacchant3@ya...>  20110617 23:58:53

Hello I have tried to build mingw binary using config/mingw/Makefile instead of config/makefile.mgw. Using this makefile, gnuplot executables are installed into 'bin' directory. On Dec 03, 2009, Petr pointed out. http://old.nabble.com/Re%3Adirectrynameproblembinisnotcorrectryrecognizedonwindowsinsomecasesp26619776.html Use 'bin' directory for storing gnuplot executables make related files should be saved in unixy way. Is the change of Makefile intentional? Regards Tatsuro 
From: Alexandre Felipe <o.alexandre.felipe@gm...>  20110617 13:03:43

PieterTjerk method is fairly better :D redefining it this make the same thing but you ask for a maximum integration distance instead a maximum intf(x0,a,h) = (h<=delta) ? f(x0+a/2)*a : ( intf(x0,a/2,delta) + intf(x0+a/2,a/2,delta) ) when you use gnuplot i think you want to plot something, this version if you say plot intf(x0, x  x0, delta) ensures that any integration interval will be larger than delta, and that the recurrence steep will be the minimum (with this function structure) if you plot with 1024 samples the integration function intf(x0, a, delta) is called 1397077 times, and the function f(x) will be evaluated 350548 times and the max recurrence depth will be 10 to integrate with the same acuracy the Daniel's scheme will call the intf* functions and f(x) are called about 523 thounsand times. and the max recurrence deepth is 1024 my scheme calls f(x) 1024 times and intf(x) 1024 times, but use some global variables. excuseme i accidentally replied only to 3snoW here goes the my scheme. It's not encouraged the use of global variables, but in such case i think here we a better solution, not THE better solution # Characteristic for the integration n_samps = 100; a = 0.0; b = 5.0; # initialization aux = 0.0; h = (ba)/n_samps; set samples n_samps set xrange [a to b] # the function f(x) = sin(5*x)/(0.1+x) #the integrator scheme intf(x) = (aux = (aux + f(x)*h)) # plot it plot f(x), intf(x) # another function f(x) = sin(x)*x replot for the 2D is also possible. the only thing you need is to reinit the aux variable when x=a this scheme is as poor as the former, therefore it's O(nsamples) and why to use recurrence if you can use memorization? intf can also have other integration schemes, with the advantage that you have to implement only once for example simpson's rule or any other method intf(x) = (aux = (aux + (f(xh)+4*f(x0.5*h)+f(x))*h/6)) this example make the h function to be called three times more. the ideal to generate plots is to derive integration schemes open in f(xh) and closed in f(x), but i will not make this now :D 
From: Alexandre Felipe <o.alexandre.felipe@gm...>  20110617 13:01:56

The PieterTjerk is fairly better :D redefining it this make the same thing but you ask for a maximum integration distance instead a maximum intf(x0,a,h) = (h<=delta) ? f(x0+a/2)*a : ( intf(x0,a/2,delta) + intf(x0+a/2,a/2,delta) ) when you use gnuplot i think you want to plot something, this version if you say plot intf(x0, x  x0, delta) ensures that any integration interval will be larger than delta, and that the recurrence steep will be the minimum (with this function structure) if you plot with 1024 samples the integration function intf(x0, a, delta) is called 1397077 times, and the function f(x) will be evaluated 350548 times and the max recurrence depth will be 10 to integrate with the same acuracy the Daniel's scheme will call the intf* functions and f(x) are called about 523 thounsand times. and the max recurrence deepth is 1024 my scheme calls f(x) 1024 times and intf(x) 1024 times, but use some global variables. excuseme i accidentally replied only to 3snoW here goes the my scheme. It's not encouraged the use of global variables, but in such case i think here we a better solution, not THE better solution # Characteristic for the integration n_samps = 100; a = 0.0; b = 5.0; # initialization aux = 0.0; h = (ba)/n_samps; set samples n_samps set xrange [a to b] # the function f(x) = sin(5*x)/(0.1+x) #the integrator scheme intf(x) = (aux = (aux + f(x)*h)) # plot it plot f(x), intf(x) # another function f(x) = sin(x)*x replot for the 2D is also possible. the only thing you need is to reinit the aux variable when x=a this scheme is as poor as the former, therefore it's O(nsamples) and why to use recurrence if you can use memorization? intf can also have other integration schemes, with the advantage that you have to implement only once for example simpson's rule or any other method intf(x) = (aux = (aux + (f(xh)+4*f(x0.5*h)+f(x))*h/6)) this example make the h function to be called three times more. the ideal to generate plots is to derive integration schemes open in f(xh) and closed in f(x), but i will not make this now :D 
From: Alexandre Felipe <o.alexandre.felipe@gm...>  20110617 13:01:08

The PieterTjerk is fairly better :D redefining it this make the same thing but you ask for a maximum integration distance instead a maximum intf(x0,a,h) = (h<=delta) ? f(x0+a/2)*a : ( intf(x0,a/2,delta) + intf(x0+a/2,a/2,delta) ) when you use gnuplot i think you want to plot something, this version if you say plot intf(x0, x  x0, delta) ensures that any integration interval will be larger than delta, and that the recurrence steep will be the minimum (with this function structure) if you plot with 1024 samples the integration function intf(x0, a, delta) is called 1397077 times, and the function f(x) will be evaluated 350548 times and the max recurrence depth will be 10 to integrate with the same acuracy the Daniel's scheme will call the intf* functions and f(x) are called about 523 thounsand times. and the max recurrence deepth is 1024 my scheme calls f(x) 1024 times and intf(x) 1024 times, but use some global variables. excuseme i accidentally replied only to 3snoW here goes the my scheme. It's not encouraged the use of global variables, but in such case i think here we a better solution, not THE better solution # Characteristic for the integration n_samps = 100; a = 0.0; b = 5.0; # initialization aux = 0.0; h = (ba)/n_samps; set samples n_samps set xrange [a to b] # the function f(x) = sin(5*x)/(0.1+x) #the integrator scheme intf(x) = (aux = (aux + f(x)*h)) # plot it plot f(x), intf(x) # another function f(x) = sin(x)*x replot for the 2D is also possible. the only thing you need is to reinit the aux variable when x=a this scheme is as poor as the former, therefore it's O(nsamples) and why to use recurrence if you can use memorization? intf can also have other integration schemes, with the advantage that you have to implement only once for example simpson's rule or any other method intf(x) = (aux = (aux + (f(xh)+4*f(x0.5*h)+f(x))*h/ 6)) this example make the h function to be called three times more. the ideal to generate plots is to derive integration schemes open in f(xh) and closed in f(x), but i will not make this now :D 
From: Alexandre Felipe <o.alexandre.felipe@gm...>  20110617 11:30:50

Does someone read what i have wrote? 
From: PieterTjerk de Boer <ptdeboer@cs...>  20110616 23:03:03

Hello, On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:35:54PM 0700, 3snoW wrote: > I've searched the web for ways to integrate in gnuplot and only found people > saying it is not possible. Unsatisfied, I decided to see if i could make one > myself. I could :D Nice! > Let me know if you have any ideas to make it better I'd suggest using the recursion not to cover the interval _linearly_, but using the recursion to _bisect_ the interval, like this: intf(a,x,n) = (n==0) ? f((a+x)/2)*(xa) : ( intf(a,(a+x)/2,n1) + intf((a+x)/2,x,n1) ) The last parameter n is the number of recursions, and which equals the 2log of the number of points in which to cut the interval. This approach should practically avoid stack overflows, since much less recursion depth is needed for the same accuracy. Regards, PieterTjerk 
From: Ethan A Merritt <sfeam@us...>  20110616 21:18:22

On Thursday, June 16, 2011 01:06:23 pm Daniel J Sebald wrote: > The bivariat.dem formula still has the problem of > recursion/stack depth, in this case: > > recursion depth limit exceeded The depth limit was set rather arbitrary at 250 on the logic that "nobody would need more than that, right?" It would be easy enough to make it userdefined. If you increase it to something much larger and the program runs out of stack space, then at least you know it's your own fault. Ethan 
From: Daniel J Sebald <daniel.sebald@ie...>  20110616 20:06:38

On 06/16/2011 01:57 PM, HansBernhard Bröker wrote: > On 16.06.2011 02:35, 3snoW wrote: > >> I'm not sure if this qualifies as "Dev", If it doesn't I'm sorry. >> I've searched the web for ways to integrate in gnuplot and only found people >> saying it is not possible. > > Strange  particularly since one of our published/enclosed demos, > bivariat.dem, has been doing just that since 1998! I gave those formulas a try. They behave better than 3snoW's formulas in the example I used, because of the parameter delta (i.e., h) rather than the fixed number of intervals of 3snoW and because of its use of Simpson's rule. The bivariat.dem formula still has the problem of recursion/stack depth, in this case: recursion depth limit exceeded An internal integration function is probably the only solution to that. The tricky part would be interpreting the function name, i.e., f(x) = cos(x) h = 0.2 M = 1 plot intgrt(f(x),h,M) where f(x) is the function, h is the (initial) stepsize, M is the integration method. The first argument, in this case "f(x)", would need special treatment in the parser different from other functions. Dan 
From: HansBernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t...>  20110616 18:56:31

On 16.06.2011 02:35, 3snoW wrote: > I'm not sure if this qualifies as "Dev", If it doesn't I'm sorry. > I've searched the web for ways to integrate in gnuplot and only found people > saying it is not possible. Strange  particularly since one of our published/enclosed demos, bivariat.dem, has been doing just that since 1998! 
From: 3snoW <vasco.tello.rato@gm...>  20110616 10:54:25

Daniel J Sebald wrote: > > On 06/15/2011 07:35 PM, 3snoW wrote: >> >> Hello, >> I'm not sure if this qualifies as "Dev", If it doesn't I'm sorry. > [snip] >> Let me know if you have any ideas to make it better or if you find any >> bug >> using it! I hope this was helpful! > > Very creative. Of course, this is straightforward rectangular > approximation to integration. It will have problems with functions that > change quickly near discontinuities and so on so won't have the > precision of, say, adaptive integral techniques. Nonetheless, it works > (sort of, see note at end), assuming the initial condition is that the > integral passes through zero at a. > > [snip] > > Notice how accuracy is lost moving outward. So you might want to > experiment with making h another parameter in the function. Generalizing, > > intf(a,x,N)=x>a?intfAux1(a,x(xa)/N/2,(xa)/N)*(xa)/N:intfAux2(a,x+(ax)/N/2,(ax)/N)*(xa)/N; > > I can't push N high enough to get good resolution before a stack > overflow occurs. > > An internal integration feature is probably the only good way to address > this sort of thing. > > Dan > Hi Dan, The reason I was using f(x)f(a) in the intfAux functions and then add f(a)*(xa) is because I originally was using a fixed small step h instead of dividing the interval in 90 small parts. That way, if f(a) was not 0, the integral would have a discontinuity every time x was a multiple of h, so, as a workaround to this problem, I set it to integrate f(x)f(a), and compensated adding f(a)*(xa). But since I switched to dividing into 90 equal parts, this is no longer a problem. I didn't make the integration method more sophisticated because of the 'stack overflow' issue. Adaptive integral techniques would most likely consume 'stacks' at a much higher rate, and in the end you would have a worse integration because of the lack of resolution. I'm thinking of maybe upgrading this to the trapezoidal integration or even a superior order technique, but for now I think this works fine for any 'well behaved' function. Lastly, the generalized function that includes N as a parameter is a good idea, but I'll call it Nintf instead of intf, because that way I can have both functions. Thank you for your contribution, it was really constructive! I'll update the config.ini file with your changes. 3snoW  View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/IntegrationingnuplotISpossible%21tp31856137p31859432.html Sent from the Gnuplot  Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. 
From: Daniel J Sebald <daniel.sebald@ie...>  20110616 08:37:43

On 06/15/2011 07:35 PM, 3snoW wrote: > > Hello, > I'm not sure if this qualifies as "Dev", If it doesn't I'm sorry. [snip] > Let me know if you have any ideas to make it better or if you find any bug > using it! I hope this was helpful! Very creative. Of course, this is straightforward rectangular approximation to integration. It will have problems with functions that change quickly near discontinuities and so on so won't have the precision of, say, adaptive integral techniques. Nonetheless, it works (sort of, see note at end), assuming the initial condition is that the integral passes through zero at a. Let's see if we can simplify your formulas slightly for efficiency. Starting with intfAux1(a,x,h)=(x>a?(f(x)f(a))*h+intfAux1(a,xh,h):0); intfAux2(a,x,h)=(x<a?(f(x)f(a))*h+intfAux2(a,x+h,h):0); intf(a,x)=x>a?intfAux1(a,xabs(xa)/90./2,abs(xa)/90.)+f(a)*(xa):intfAux2(a,x+abs(xa)/90./2,abs(xa)/90.)+f(a)*(xa); Note that the abs() function call is extraneous because we know that If x>a, then abs(xa) = xa If x<=a, then abs(xa) = ax Therefore, substituting the above intf(a,x)=x>a?intfAux1(a,x(xa)/90./2,(xa)/90.)+f(a)*(xa):intfAux2(a,x+(ax)/90./2,(ax)/90.)+f(a)*(xa); It's possible to factor out the h from the auxiliary formulas and simply multiply it with the auxiliary formula, knowing that h=(xa)/90 in the one case and h=(ax)/90 in the other case: intfAux1(a,x,h)=(x>a?(f(x)f(a))+intfAux1(a,xh,h):0); intfAux2(a,x,h)=(x<a?(f(x)f(a))+intfAux2(a,x+h,h):0); intf(a,x)=x>a?intfAux1(a,x(xa)/90./2,(xa)/90.)*(xa)/90.+f(a)*(xa):intfAux2(a,x+(ax)/90./2,(ax)/90.)*(ax)/90.+f(a)*(xa); Swap the order of x and a in the second formula: intf(a,x)=x>a?intfAux1(a,x(xa)/90./2,(xa)/90.)*(xa)/90.+f(a)*(xa):intfAux2(a,x+(ax)/90./2,(ax)/90.)*(xa)/90.+f(a)*(xa); Note that f(a) is subtracted 90 times, so that can be removed from the auxiliary formulas and lumped in the main formula: intfAux1(a,x,h)=(x>a?f(x)+intfAux1(a,xh,h):0); intfAux2(a,x,h)=(x<a?f(x)+intfAux2(a,x+h,h):0); intf(a,x)=x>a?intfAux1(a,x(xa)/90./2,(xa)/90.)*(xa)/90.90.*f(a)*(xa)/90.+f(a)*(xa):intfAux2(a,x+(ax)/90./2,(ax)/90.)*(xa)/90.90.*f(a)*(xa)/90.+f(a)*(xa); at which point a couple terms cancel. So we have intfAux1(a,x,h)=(x>a?f(x)+intfAux1(a,xh,h):0); intfAux2(a,x,h)=(x<a?f(x)+intfAux2(a,x+h,h):0); intf(a,x)=x>a?intfAux1(a,x(xa)/90./2,(xa)/90.)*(xa)/90.:intfAux2(a,x+(ax)/90./2,(ax)/90.)*(xa)/90.; Seems to work the same. It's not drastically shorter, but the arithmetic operations are reduced. The thing one has to be aware of is that as x gets further and further away from a, the resolution effectively decreases because element h=(xa)/90 becomes larger. This is a problem for functions that appear to be high frequency. For example, try your cosine example, but with set sample 1000 set xrange [200:200] Notice how accuracy is lost moving outward. So you might want to experiment with making h another parameter in the function. Generalizing, intf(a,x,N)=x>a?intfAux1(a,x(xa)/N/2,(xa)/N)*(xa)/N:intfAux2(a,x+(ax)/N/2,(ax)/N)*(xa)/N; I can't push N high enough to get good resolution before a stack overflow occurs. An internal integration feature is probably the only good way to address this sort of thing. Dan 
From: 3snoW <vasco.tello.rato@gm...>  20110616 00:36:00

Hello, I'm not sure if this qualifies as "Dev", If it doesn't I'm sorry. I've searched the web for ways to integrate in gnuplot and only found people saying it is not possible. Unsatisfied, I decided to see if i could make one myself. I could :D This was the result: intfAux1(a,x,h)=(x>a?(f(x)f(a))*h+intfAux1(a,xh,h):0); intfAux2(a,x,h)=(x<a?(f(x)f(a))*h+intfAux2(a,x+h,h):0); intf(a,x)=x>a?intfAux1(a,xabs(xa)/90./2,abs(xa)/90.)+f(a)*(xa):intfAux2(a,x+abs(xa)/90./2,abs(xa)/90.)+f(a)*(xa); Basically, intfAux 1 and 2 are just functions for this thing to work, and intf(a,b) integrates f(x) from a to b. You can just type this in every time you want to integrate f(x), or you can download the gnuplot.ini that i made with this function and put it into your binary folder: http://old.nabble.com/file/p31856137/gnuplot.ini gnuplot.ini Here is also a demonstration of using this: http://old.nabble.com/file/p31856137/Integrate%2B.png There are two problems with this function (that I know of): It will most likely not work with self recursive functions because this function itself is self recursive, and gnuplot has a "stack overflow" limit. This makes it impossible to double integrate using this function. I made it so it was not at the limit, it is almost there, so, for example having a function g(x)=h(intf(0,x)) should not be a problem. By the way, if anyone knows of a way to set the stack overflow limit higher, I'd appreciate posting it here. The other problem is that it will integrate specifically f(x), so if you want to integrate another function, g(x) for example, you would have to create an intg(a,b). To make this task easier, I made it so that if you replace in those 3 lines of code all the f's with the name of your function, g for example (again), you would have your intg made. This way you can just open notepad, use the "replace" command and copy the result to gnuplot. Let me know if you have any ideas to make it better or if you find any bug using it! I hope this was helpful! 3snoW  View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/IntegrationingnuplotISpossible%21tp31856137p31856137.html Sent from the Gnuplot  Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. 
From: <plotter@pi...>  20110608 08:35:27

On 06/08/11 04:50, Ethan Merritt wrote: > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 06:05:40 pm Clark Gaylord wrote: >> I have always felt the gnuplot.info name should be canonical. It points > to sf for v4 and vt for v6 and is much more portable. > > But what is it that one is citing, exactly? > > The source is not (so far as I know) available on gnuplot.info, > So if the idea is to cite the location of the program source, then *·info > may not be the correct URL. > > If the idea is to cite the manual, say, then that's another issue. > Perhaps we should register the manual with a repository that would > issue a permanent DOI. arXiv.org? > > > Ethan > Hi, What is the aim here? The fact that you are having to do contortions to fit this into the reference citation format for the publications suggests you are misusing it. That may not go down well with the publisher. While it is nice to recognise the software in a paper using it , it is after all only a plotting tool and there is no reason to cite it as a reference since it should not affect the results in any way. The only exception I can think of is if your are using it to do linear regression or something in which case you should probably understand how it does that and comment on what methods *you* have adopted to fit straight lines , functions, whatever, in choosing to do that with a particular tool that automates the process. To recognise gnuplot and help the reader reproduce your work it would be sufficient to name gnuplot as an open source plotting tool. Anyone capable of using it should be able to find without further help. Mentioning gnuplot as the tool used to produce any graphics seems like a good idea. I doubt citing it as a reference is appropriate. best regards. 
From: Ethan Merritt <merritt@u.washington.edu>  20110608 02:50:06

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 06:05:40 pm Clark Gaylord wrote: > I have always felt the gnuplot.info name should be canonical. It points to sf for v4 and vt for v6 and is much more portable. But what is it that one is citing, exactly? The source is not (so far as I know) available on gnuplot.info, So if the idea is to cite the location of the program source, then *·info may not be the correct URL. If the idea is to cite the manual, say, then that's another issue. Perhaps we should register the manual with a repository that would issue a permanent DOI. arXiv.org? Ethan 
From: Ethan Merritt <merritt@u.washington.edu>  20110608 02:40:44

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 06:05:40 pm Clark Gaylord wrote: > I have always felt the gnuplot.info name should be canonical. It points to sf for v4 and vt for v6 and is much more portable. What's "v6"? Ethan > >  > Clark Gaylord > cgaylord@... 
From: Clark Gaylord <cgaylord@vt...>  20110608 01:22:45

I have always felt the gnuplot.info name should be canonical. It points to sf for v4 and vt for v6 and is much more portable.  Clark Gaylord cgaylord@... ... sent from HTC Android autocorrect is not always my friend ...  Reply message  From: "Ethan Merritt" <merritt@...> Date: Tue, Jun 7, 2011 12:29 Subject: Citation of gnuplot in a scientific publication To: <gnuplotbeta@...> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 06:18:18 am Peter Juhasz wrote: > Dear gnuplotbeta list, > > I want to cite gnuplot in my publication. Is the following reference OK? > > Williams, T. and Kelley, C. (2011). Gnuplot 4.5: an interactive > plotting program. URL http://gnuplot.info. (Last accessed: 2011 June > 7) I have used the following BibTeX entry: @MISC{Gnuplot_4.4, author = {Thomas Williams and Colin Kelley and {many others}}, title = {Gnuplot 4.4: an interactive plotting program}, month = {March}, year = {2010}, howpublished={\url{http://gnuplot.sourceforge.net/}} } Ethan  Ethan A Merritt Biomolecular Structure Center, K428 Health Sciences Bldg University of Washington, Seattle 981957742  EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephoxdev2dev _______________________________________________ gnuplotbeta mailing list gnuplotbeta@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gnuplotbeta 