[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: Numeric Accuracy

To: mathgroup@smc.vnet.net
Subject: [mg11945] Re: Numeric Accuracy
From: hello@there.com (Rod Pinna)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:03:37 -0400
Organization: UWA

In article , hello@there.com (Rod Pinna) wrote:

>However, when enter the dimensions as follows:
>a=10,t=0.05`1000,L=16.1886`1000,W=207x10^9,n=0.3`1000
>
>The solution now produces two solutions which are almost exactly 
>the same, and have a value about 310551.7, which is quite a long 
>way from the correct solution.

Actually, I've found what I think is a solution, and that is to  define
the dimensions as rational numbers, using Rationalize.

Now, I get the same answers as using machine precision. While I'm  happy
enough to accept these results now, does anybody have any  idea as to
why using large arbitrary precisions numbers didn't  seem to work?

Thanks :)

Rod Pinna
(rpinnaX@XcivilX.uwa.edu.au  Remove the X for email)

Prev by Date: Unexpected behaviour with Series/Integrate/Normal

Next by Date: ConvexHull3D

Prev by thread: Numeric Accuracy

Next by thread: Run Software