Well, I say "improved" because when it does converge it will converge for very high number of nodes. Perhaps though that isn't accurate, because it now doesn't work for numbers of nodes like 409, 413, 417, etc. I just realized that 209 is not enough, the node amount needs to be higher than that.
For node amounts like 411, 415, 419, etc. even very high ones, the code converges to the smooth graph, so I do not see the need to bother with graphing that case. At 811 nodes with A = 24 it converges exquisitely with the residual after 32 normalized followed by 6 unnormalized iterations having a magnitude smaller than 10^-9.
If you want, the graphs for case 409 nodes and A = 14 are shown below, after 6 to 10 iterations. After the first 5 it seems to be settling, then it does, well, you can see.
Finally, as for not using the conjugate, I do this because I'm thinking about attempting to use it on certain complex-number bases eventually, which will not have the conjugate symmetry. So I'd like to see if it is possible to get it to work without that.
For node amounts like 411, 415, 419, etc. even very high ones, the code converges to the smooth graph, so I do not see the need to bother with graphing that case. At 811 nodes with A = 24 it converges exquisitely with the residual after 32 normalized followed by 6 unnormalized iterations having a magnitude smaller than 10^-9.
If you want, the graphs for case 409 nodes and A = 14 are shown below, after 6 to 10 iterations. After the first 5 it seems to be settling, then it does, well, you can see.
Finally, as for not using the conjugate, I do this because I'm thinking about attempting to use it on certain complex-number bases eventually, which will not have the conjugate symmetry. So I'd like to see if it is possible to get it to work without that.