[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: FindInstance question
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg55773] Re: FindInstance question
*From*: dh <dh at metrohm.ch>
*Date*: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 03:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <d2tf3e$qke$1@smc.vnet.net>
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Hi J=E1nos,
you want to visualize a real number that is either negative or larger
than 1.
Well, I think the best you can do is to take paper and pencil.
Sincerely, Daniel
J=E1nos wrote:
> If I am looking for the solution set of x < x^2, Reduce gives me the
> answer:
>
> In[14]:=
> Reduce[x < x^2, x]
> Out[14]=
> x < 0 || x > 1
>
> I tried to use FindInstance and ListPlot to visualize it for my 7th
> grade son, based upon the example on the Book Section 3.4.8.
>
> In[15]:=
> FindInstance[x < x^2, x,
> Reals, 50]
> Out[15]=
> {{x -> -4375}, {x -> -4304},
> {x -> -4089}, {x -> -3945},
> {x -> -3707}, {x -> -3682},
> {x -> -3486}, {x -> -3414},
> {x -> -3331}, {x -> -3286},
> {x -> -3248}, {x -> -3018},
> {x -> -2974}, {x -> -2953},
> {x -> -2941}, {x -> -2877},
> {x -> -2864}, {x -> -2687},
> {x -> -2525}, {x -> -2373},
> {x -> -2108}, {x -> -2074},
> {x -> -1773}, {x -> -1403},
> {x -> -1402}, {x -> -1348},
> {x -> -1092}, {x -> -566},
> {x -> -51}, {x -> 77},
> {x -> 195}, {x -> 1181},
> {x -> 1216}, {x -> 1547},
> {x -> 1687}, {x -> 1765},
> {x -> 1876}, {x -> 2040},
> {x -> 2713}, {x -> 2734},
> {x -> 3018}, {x -> 3312},
> {x -> 3455}, {x -> 3503},
> {x -> 3704}, {x -> 3927},
> {x -> 3974}, {x -> 3985},
> {x -> 4349}, {x -> 4944}}
>
> Well, the closest values to 0 and 1 are -51 and 77. It is not
> terrible useful to ListPlot them. If I select 500 points instead of
> 50 it just gets worse.
>
> My question is:
>
> 1, Is it possible to suggest FindInstance to use values "much
> closer" to the boundaries of 0 and 1 or
>
> 2 If it is not possible, what methods others would use for this
> situation to visualize ?
>
> I tried
>
> In[18]:=
> FindInstance[x < x^2 &&
> x > -2 && x < 2, x, Reals,
> 50]
>
> but that is not the original inequality :)
> I also tried to replace the Reals domain with something - logical
> looking - else, but Mathematica really wants a built in domain there.
>
> In[32]:=
> FindInstance[x < x^2, x,
> x > -2 && x < 2, 50]
>
> or
>
> In[37]:=
> FindInstance[x < x^2, x,
> {-2, 2}, 50]
>
> and it complained:
>
> FindInstance::"bddom":"Value \!\(\(\(x > \(\(-2\)\)\)\) && \(\(x < 2\)
> \)\) of \
> the domain argument should be Complexes, Reals, Algebraics, Rationals, \
> Integers, Primes, Booleans, or Automatic. \
> \!\(\*ButtonBox[\"More\[Ellipsis]\", ButtonStyle->\"RefGuideLinkText
> \", \
> ButtonFrame->None, ButtonData:>\"FindInstance::bddom\"]\)"
>
>
> A non existent "user defined Domain" would be handy here. I am
> thinking of a
>
> myDomain[x_Real]:=UserDefinedDomain[x > -2 && x < 3]
>
> or similar construction to put into FindInstance. Is that too much
> to ask ?
>
> Thanks ahead,
>
> J=E1nos
>
>
>
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re[2]: Re: Numerical accuracy of Hypergeometric2F1**
Next by Date:
**Re: Re: Happy with v. 5.1.1. --- NMinimize, and MathOptimizer Professional**
Previous by thread:
**Re: FindInstance question**
Next by thread:
** immediate abort at error messages**
| |