Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

bounded_runs_iter simulates a strange number of time steps #11

Open
Ratfink opened this issue Nov 4, 2022 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #29
Open

bounded_runs_iter simulates a strange number of time steps #11

Ratfink opened this issue Nov 4, 2022 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #29

Comments

@Ratfink
Copy link
Owner

Ratfink commented Nov 4, 2022

The bounded_runs_iter function takes parameters n and t, specifying the number of time steps per call to bounded_runs and the number of iterations. But currently it actually simulates t+1 iterations, which is just a strange decision on my part. We should fix it so the number of time steps is just n*t instead of n*(t+1).
@Ratfink
Copy link
Owner Author

Ratfink commented Mar 20, 2023

In fact, it would be better to specify n, the number of steps per iteration, and H, the overall time horizon. That way, a user could more easily adjust the parameter n while keeping the number of steps the same. t feels more like an implementation detail anyway.

@Ratfink Ratfink mentioned this issue Mar 20, 2023
Merged
This was referenced Jul 5, 2023
Closed
Draft
@shengjiex98 shengjiex98 linked a pull request Jul 5, 2023 that will close this issue
Specify H instead of t in bounded-runs-iter() #29
Draft
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Specify H instead of t in bounded-runs-iter() shengjiex98/ControlTimingSafety.jl
1 participant
@Ratfink