fine to read you again, Carl

fine to read you again, Carl

moreover: exp(beta*(epsilon-V)) may cause over/under flow

As far as I can read the code ...

moreover: exp(beta*(epsilon-V)) may cause over/under flow

As far as I can read the code ...

Never used that. I think one would do so in Mathematics as well.
Except if there are no parameters and no relations (i.e. modulo
some ideal).

If you are for shortenings, the following may do it:

  [x^2+y^2+z^2=3,x+y+z=3];
  indets(%, symbol): convert(%, list);

                              [x, y, z]

The function also depends on h, no clear what you want, Markiyan gave an example
(and silently did some more).

I do not even see that the 'rules' exhaust a domain.

Best would be to post the integral you want. And talk about h a bit as well.

The function also depends on h, no clear what you want, Markiyan gave an example
(and silently did some more).

I do not even see that the 'rules' exhaust a domain.

Best would be to post the integral you want. And talk about h a bit as well.

@edgar 

My Maple refuses to do the work (both version 16 and 15), find a sheet attached.

MP_double_int.mws

@edgar 

My Maple refuses to do the work (both version 16 and 15), find a sheet attached.

MP_double_int.mws

@edgar:

how you did erf*erf*exp ? I guess it is a tri-normal, yes?

@edgar:

how you did erf*erf*exp ? I guess it is a tri-normal, yes?

As I changed my PC these days: all that also may heavily depend on your TFT,
the installed drivers, the installed fonts. And Windows settings (if you are
on that). And the operating system (XP was ok, Win 7 is a mess).

It may be even a pain for built in pop-ups coming with Windows.

For short: every thing beyond (concurrent) standard displays is unclear to handle.

And I think, the most is due to Windows, not Maple.

As I changed my PC these days: all that also may heavily depend on your TFT,
the installed drivers, the installed fonts. And Windows settings (if you are
on that). And the operating system (XP was ok, Win 7 is a mess).

It may be even a pain for built in pop-ups coming with Windows.

For short: every thing beyond (concurrent) standard displays is unclear to handle.

And I think, the most is due to Windows, not Maple.

Looking at the gradient one sees it has no zero. Thus I think the extrema are achieved
in the boundary of the constraints. But that is a closed and low dimensonal subset (it is
analytic and then restricted to the Reals, I think).

Are those solvers/optimizers able to run in such sets or do they need an open domain?

Even if they start in boundary points it is not clear for me how they can vary inputs and
stay in that boundary (except if it is parametrized)


PS: the given reduction (canceling out c) is just like setting c=1 in the original task.

If the function has some term like sqrt(1-t^2), then I would prefer to have
the strict condition -1 <= t <= t to be obeyed instead of using 'abs' inside.

Or more generally it would be convenient, if the domain of definition is
obeyed by the solver. That seems to be not clear, if the domain in not a
closed subset, like for 1 / sqrt(1-t^2).