Revision as of 07:49, 8 April 2014 edit Nicob1984 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 700 edits →No Exact Solution? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:05, 8 October 2015 edit undo Pred (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 884 edits →About the example: new section Next edit →
Line 33: I object to the statement "In the vast majority of cases, the equation to be solved when using an implicit scheme is much more complicated than a quadratic equation, and no exact solution exists". In typical cases, an exact solution certainly exists, but there is just not a formula to compute it. The wording of the end of the sentence should to changed as to not be confusing. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.120.216.154\|208.120.216.154]] ([[User talk:208.120.216.154\|talk]]) 02:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :Indeed, I made some changes now. [[User:Nicob1984\|Nico]] ([[User talk:Nicob1984\|talk]]) 07:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC) == About the example == At the moment, it looks like the <math>y_{k+1}</math> obtained from the Backward Euler method actually does a really poor job at approximating the analytical solution to the given differential equation (in particular, they're all positive), so that it's not clear why one would go through the extra steps to obtain it. But perhaps this is intentional? --[[User:Pred\|pred]] ([[User talk:Pred\|talk]]) 13:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Explicit and implicit methods: Difference between revisions