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

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>