Re: Numeric Accuracy
In article , firstname.lastname@example.org (Rod Pinna) wrote:
>However, when enter the dimensions as follows:
>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?
(rpinnaX@XcivilX.uwa.edu.au Remove the X for email)
Prev by Date:
Unexpected behaviour with Series/Integrate/Normal
Next by Date:
Prev by thread:
Next by thread: