Re: Re: Re: Reduce/Solve
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg50008] Re: [mg49995] Re: [mg49990] Re: Reduce/Solve
- From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:53:05 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200408090829.EAA03580@smc.vnet.net> <200408101002.GAA19500@smc.vnet.net> <766AE111-EABF-11D8-BBFD-000A95B4967A@mimuw.edu.pl> <opsciyqjd6iz9bcq@monster.cox-internet.com>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
On 10 Aug 2004, at 18:28, DrBob wrote: > *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) > Pro* > Andrzej, > >>> I see no reason to modify anything in it. Do you? > > Since you ask... > > All I did was apply the word "valiant" to your defense of Reduce; it's > not a disparaging word. The paragraph you repeated below (from your > second message in the thread) admitted something might be wrong, too, > so of course you were right. You're almost always right, Andrzej. > > This was preceded by a lengthy defense for Reduce's behavior, however, > and look at this statement from your previous post in the thread: > >>> In your particular case Solve produces a warning about using Inverse >>> functions and tells you that you may not have a complete solution. >>> That tells you exactly the reason why Reduce returns the original >>> expression back to you. > > "That tells you exactly the reason..."? > > Maybe not. What do you think? > > Bobby Of course not. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to this particular case and less to general principles. But what I wrote was, I think, the rational explanation. We are, however, dealing here with a bug and bugs are like acts of God (and I don't mean Stephen W.) which defy rationality, at least as far as mortals like myself are concerned. Andrzej
- References:
- Re: Reduce/Solve
- From: "Dana DeLouis" <delouis@bellsouth.net>
- Re: Re: Reduce/Solve
- From: DrBob <drbob@bigfoot.com>
- Re: Reduce/Solve