<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Numerical Methods for Non-Linear Optimization	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.henrypoon.com/blog/2011/01/29/numerical-methods-for-non-linear-optimization/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.henrypoon.com/blog/2011/01/29/numerical-methods-for-non-linear-optimization/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:45:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: hp		</title>
		<link>https://blog.henrypoon.com/blog/2011/01/29/numerical-methods-for-non-linear-optimization/#comment-240</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hp]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://henrypoon.mooo.com/blog/numerical-methods-for-non-linear-optimization#comment-240</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://blog.henrypoon.com/blog/2011/01/29/numerical-methods-for-non-linear-optimization/#comment-239&quot;&gt;Mark Hagerman&lt;/a&gt;.

I too found that the steepest descent method works well for fitting a curve since it&#039;s hard take derivatives there are so many summations in the equations.  I too programmed a way to do the steepest descent method, but unfortunately, trying to fit a circle using least squares was very difficult because a bad initial guess kept making my solution diverge.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://blog.henrypoon.com/blog/2011/01/29/numerical-methods-for-non-linear-optimization/#comment-239">Mark Hagerman</a>.</p>
<p>I too found that the steepest descent method works well for fitting a curve since it&#8217;s hard take derivatives there are so many summations in the equations.  I too programmed a way to do the steepest descent method, but unfortunately, trying to fit a circle using least squares was very difficult because a bad initial guess kept making my solution diverge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mark Hagerman		</title>
		<link>https://blog.henrypoon.com/blog/2011/01/29/numerical-methods-for-non-linear-optimization/#comment-239</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Hagerman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://henrypoon.mooo.com/blog/numerical-methods-for-non-linear-optimization#comment-239</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve been playing with the steepest descent method for fitting a curve of the form: y = a + b*exp(cx) to a data set.

I select the step size (h) by computing the variance for the current parameters (a,b,c), and for the modified parameters at -hu and -2hu. Then I fit those values to a parabola (a la Simpson&#039;s method), and use the results to calculate a revised step size.

It seems to work fairly well, though I&#039;m still fine-tuning the code.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been playing with the steepest descent method for fitting a curve of the form: y = a + b*exp(cx) to a data set.</p>
<p>I select the step size (h) by computing the variance for the current parameters (a,b,c), and for the modified parameters at -hu and -2hu. Then I fit those values to a parabola (a la Simpson&#8217;s method), and use the results to calculate a revised step size.</p>
<p>It seems to work fairly well, though I&#8217;m still fine-tuning the code.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
