vv

14252 Reputation

20 Badges

11 years, 0 days

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by vv

@tomleslie Maybe because you are using a 65 bit OS  :-)

@nguyenhuyenag 
The question is what information about f is contained in discriminant(f,[k])?
When such a computation is useful for a polynomial in several variables?

Also, if you try  g:=eval(f, a=d+e) in your last example, it does not terminate.

What are you trying to obtain?
E.g. in your last example, what does discriminant(f, [k]) represent for f?

@afernande1008 

It's a bug in Physics:-diff. Use diff instead.

F:=int(f(x+r(t)), x=0..1):
Physics:-diff(F, r(t)); # bug

                               0
diff( eval(F, r(t)=rt), rt); # OK
                 int(D(f)(x + rt), x = 0 .. 1)
 

@Axel Vogt I don't think so. The function is

f := f0 + r:  # where
f0 := x -> add(- i * sin((i + 1) * x + i), i=1..5):
r := rand(-1. .. 1.):
plot(f, -10 .. 10, numpoints=5000);

and it is practically nowhere continuous. DirectSearch does not try to "clean-up" the noise r().

The program is written in Algol. The syntax is close to Maple, so, if you produce from the pdf a correct text file (with indentation) it should be easy to obtain a Maple version.

@Thomas Richard 

For k=64/81 the polynomial ir reducible:

((3*w - 2)*(162*w^4 - 297*w^3 + 72*w^2 + 48*w + 32))/81

For solvable irreducibles, the values of k=m/n, |m|, |n| <= 100  are: -16/9, 1/81, 25/9, 80/81.

@Thomas Richard 

The value k=1/81 is interesting because the polynomial is irreducible and solve with option explicit works. 

@Carl Love 

Actually Im( ln(1+ z) ) does not have a limit at z=-1. The limit of ln(1+z) at z=-1 is "complex infinity" (denoted by infinity+I*infinity) in Maple.

Note that assuming does not make much difference between `<` and `<=`.

E.g.

limit(z^n, n=infinity) assuming abs(z)<=1; #   0

@David Sycamore 

Probably you have not noticed the new name for the procedure.

SP:= proc(N::posint, p1::prime:= 2)
local S:= Array([p1], datatype= integer[8]), Used:= table([p1= ()]), s, k, p:= p1, i,j,ok;
    for k from 2 to N do
        s:= `+`(convert(p, base, 10)[]);
        p:= s; ok:=false;
        for i do  for j by 2 to 10^i-1 do
            if p::prime and Used[p]<>() then ok:=true; break fi;
            p:= Scale10(s, i) + j;
        od; if ok then break fi;
        od;
        S(k):= p; Used[p]:= ()
    od;
    [seq(S)]
end proc:

SP(100);

[2, 23, 5, 53, 83, 11, 29, 113, 59, 149, 1409, 1423, 101, 211, 41, 503, 89, 17, 809, 173, 1103, 509, 1427, 1429, 163, 103, 43, 7, 71, 811, 107, 821, 1109, 1117, 109, 1009, 1013, 521, 823, 13, 47, 1123, 73, 1019, 1129, 131, 523, 1021, 401, 541, 1031, 547, 167, 1433, 1151, 827, 179, 1709, 1721, 1153, 1033, 79, 1601, 829, 19, 1039, 137, 1163, 1171, 1049, 1439, 1723, 139, 1301, 557, 1733, 1447, 1607, 1451, 1181, 1187, 1741, 1303, 701, 839, 2003, 563, 1453, 1307, 1193, 1459, 191, 11003, 569, 2011, 409, 1319, 1471, 1321, 709]

(1)

SP(100, 3);

[3, 31, 41, 5, 53, 83, 11, 2, 23, 59, 149, 1409, 1423, 101, 29, 113, 503, 89, 17, 809, 173, 1103, 509, 1427, 1429, 163, 103, 43, 7, 71, 811, 107, 821, 1109, 1117, 109, 1009, 1013, 521, 823, 13, 47, 1123, 73, 1019, 1129, 131, 523, 1021, 401, 541, 1031, 547, 167, 1433, 1151, 827, 179, 1709, 1721, 1153, 1033, 79, 1601, 829, 19, 1039, 137, 1163, 1171, 1049, 1439, 1723, 139, 1301, 557, 1733, 1447, 1607, 1451, 1181, 1187, 1741, 1303, 701, 839, 2003, 563, 1453, 1307, 1193, 1459, 191, 11003, 569, 2011, 409, 1319, 1471, 1321]

(2)

 


Download SP.mw

SP:= proc(N::posint, p1::prime:= 2)
local S:= Array([p1], datatype= integer[8]), Used:= table([p1= ()]), s, k, p:= p1, i,j,ok;
    for k from 2 to N do
        s:= `+`(convert(p, base, 10)[]);
        p:= s; ok:=false;
        for i do  for j by 2 to 10^i-1 do
            if p::prime and Used[p]<>() then ok:=true; break fi;
            p:= Scale10(s, i) + j;
        od; if ok then break fi;
        od;
        S(k):= p; Used[p]:= ()
    od;
    [seq(S)]
end proc:

 

@tomleslie 

The documentation also refers to the "angle between two given objects". What are the objects in this case? 
Anyway, it's a bug.

@Preben Alsholm 

Yes, it seems that you are right. 
I was able to show the uniquness of an analytic solution near 0 (|t| < 1/10).
It is not clear if X is C^2 only. [of course X will be C^oo for t<>0 but not necessarily analytic (for now)].

The original ODE seems to have nonunique solution. I wonder whether this is true.

Digits:=30:

ode := X(t)*diff(X(t), t, t) - diff(X(t), t)/(1 + diff(X(t), t)^2) - (100000000000000*t^14 + 7000000000000*t^12 + 110000000000*t^10 - 500000000*t^8 - 43000000*t^6 - 170000*t^4 - 1700*t^2 - 1)/(2*(100*t^2 + 1)^4*(50000000*t^8 + 2000000*t^6 + 35000*t^4 + 100*t^2 + 1)):

U := t -> t/((t*10)^2+1):

simplify(eval(ode, X=U)), [U(0), D(U)(0)];

0, [0, 1]

(1)

SOL:=dsolve([ode, X(1/2)=0.0211219739941351352807211288991, D(X)(1/2)=0.0540921883052830726848992435887], numeric):

SOL(0);

[t = 0., X(t) = -0.6183797497033975954346534e-9, diff(X(t), t) = .999999999968940002706651656002]

(2)

[U(0.5), D(U)(0.5)];

[0.192307692307692307692307692308e-1, -0.355029585798816568047337278107e-1]

(3)

plots:-display(plots:-odeplot(SOL, 0.4..0.5), plot(U, 0.4..0.5, color=blue));

 

 

 

@mmcdara 

Why do you think that there is "the" exact solution. Maybe the ode has more than one (standard uniqueness theorems do not apply here).

First 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Last Page 45 of 178