[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Simplify and FullSimplify
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg58559] Re: Simplify and FullSimplify
*From*: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>
*Date*: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 05:35:48 -0400 (EDT)
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
On 7/6/05 at 3:11 AM, fizzycist at knology.net (fizzy) wrote:
>A result of a calculation I was doing generated this expression....
>q-q Exp[-a x] + c Exp[-a x]
>naturally my next step was Simplify and I thought I'd get the
>Exp[- ax] collected.....to my complete surprize I got the
>following:
>Exp[-a x] (c + (-1+ Exp[a x]) q
>How on Earth did Mathematica come up with this? I checked
>FullSimplify which did collect Exp[-a x]....
>On re-reading my question before I submitted it, I see that with
>Simplify Mathematica 'collected' using Exp[- a x] q.....of course,
>visually this expression seems quite complex and would seem to take
>much more 'thinking' to get ......why do Simplify and FullSimplify
>have such a vast difference in what is considered 'Simpler'?
The issue isn't a difference between what is considered simpler by Simplify and FullSimplify. Instead, FullSimplify tries more transformations than Simplify.
For any method to simplify an expression, there will always be a trade between execution time and results. Simplify tries fewer transformations, enhancing execution time at the cost of not finding a transformation that may make the expression simpler. FullSimplify tries more transformations, significantly increasing the probability of finding a transformation that leads to a simpler expression at the cost of execution time.
--
To reply via email subtract one hundred and four
Prev by Date:
**Set of strings reducing problem**
Next by Date:
**Re: Partial diff equations**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Simplify and FullSimplify**
Next by thread:
**Re: Simplify and FullSimplify**
| |