Umm - without reading it closely, it looks oddly like early 70's binomial methods, which were also mercifully free of the need of any spatial boundaries.
Umm - without reading it closely, it looks oddly like early 70's binomial methods, which were also mercifully free of the need of any spatial boundaries.
"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
Scheme (3) is explicit Euler on non-uniform meshes. This went out of fashion after Richardson's famous article (1910?).So they use a Dirichlet BC at x = 0 and they do not use any BC at the far field boundary.
and they wrote "Instead, we reduce grid points by one in every time step" ???????
Here a screenshot of that part of the paper:
I can't read this article but it is possible to get rid of boundary conditions. As Bearish said, x-nomial trees do it. I am also doing it with kernel methods.Umm - without reading it closely, it looks oddly like early 70's binomial methods, which were also mercifully free of the need of any spatial boundaries.
No. I'm talking about Asian options using FDM, not trees nor your meshless method. You are not even close.I can't read this article but it is possible to get rid of boundary conditions. As Bearish said, x-nomial trees do it. I am also doing it with kernel methods.Umm - without reading it closely, it looks oddly like early 70's binomial methods, which were also mercifully free of the need of any spatial boundaries.