<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Parallelizing Explicit and Implicit Extrapolation Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2207.08135/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2207.08135/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Parallelizing Explicit and Implicit Extrapolation Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations — mentioned by ChrisRackauckas</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45265730</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2207.08135:45265730</guid><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 18:11:39 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;B-S is just a (bad) explicit Runge-Kutta method. You can see this formally since if you take any order of the B-S method, you can write out its computation as a Runge-Kutta tableau. If you do this, you&amp;#x27;ll see it ends up being an explict RK method that has much higher f evaluations to achieve the leading truncation error coefficients and order that the leading RK methods get. For example, 9th order B-S uses IIRC about 2-3 times as many f evaluations as Vern9, while Vern9 gets like 3 orders of magnitude less error (on average w.r.t. LTE measurements). If you&amp;#x27;re curious about details of…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2207.08135/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.NA</category></item></channel></rss>
