Re: Re: Simple question or how Mathematica getting on my nerves.

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg45937] Re: [mg45894] Re: Simple question or how Mathematica getting on my nerves.*From*: Cheng Liu <cliu at lanl.gov>*Date*: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:16:08 -0500 (EST)*References*: <butdvt$9se$1@smc.vnet.net>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Hi, Vladimir, Use NIntegrate rather than Integrate, I got the same result as those unnamed applications. I saw the words eval and APPROX in the applications, so NIntegrate makes more sense to me. Cheng At 03:34 AM 1/29/2004, Vladimir Bondarenko wrote: >gtsavdar at auth.gr (George) wrote in message news:<butdvt$9se$1 at smc.vnet.net>... > > Although the 2 results must be the same they aren't. WHY??????? > > And not only this, but they differ by 10^21!!!!!! WHY???????? > > >Hello, > >I have a remark to the answers given by Msr Hanlon, Rowe, Noffke, >Kozlowski and Treat whose many comment I agree with, and two >questions about the Mathematica overall design. > >There are at least 2 commercial applications where the things go >smoothly in the case at hand. I respect the request of our >moderator Steven Christensen and not name those applications >but the fact remains: > > > evalf(int(2687176093959399272413585923303421161600*(1-f)^67*f^61, f = > .6214 .. .5242)); > > evalf(int(2687176093959399272413585923303421161600*(1-f)^67*f^61, f = > 6214/10000 .. 5242/10000)); > >-.1398383104 >-.1398383104 > >APPROX(INT(2687176093959399272413585923303421161600*(1-f)^67*f^61, f, >6214/10000,5242/10000)) >APPROX(INT(2687176093959399272413585923303421161600*(1-f)^67*f^61, f, >0.6214, 0.5242)) > >-0.1398383104 >-0.1398383104 > > >while for Mathematica we see > > >Integrate[2687176093959399272413585923303421161600*(1 - f)^67*f^61, >{f, 0.6214, 0.5242}] > >-9.37972 10^21 (* Mathematica 5.0 *) >-9.2522 10^21 (* Mathematica 4.2.1 *) >-7.82732 10^21 (* Mathematica 3.0 *) >1.03892 10^23 (* Mathematica 2.2 *) > >I believe all of you would agree that treating the above results >yielded by those application as pure coincidence would set before >us a formidable challenge as the chances such random behavior >would be some 1/10^20; thus, it's not by chance. > >My questions are, > >1) Why exactly none Mathematica version can operate in a similar way? > >2) Suppose, the above behavior is a feature. Had Mathematica been > designed in a way supporting the behavior of those two > systems, what would be the headaches inferred from such > hypothetical design? > > >Best wishes, > >Vladimir Bondarenko > >GEMM architect >Co-founder, CEO, Mathematical Director >Cyber Tester, LLC > >http://www.cybertester.com/ >http://www.CAS-testing.org/ > >....................................................................... =================================== Cheng Liu, Ph.D. MST-8, MS-G755 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545 email: cliu at lanl.gov Phone: (505)665-6892 (office) (505)667-9950 (lab) Fax: (505)667-8021 ===================================