MathGroup Archive 2005

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

Search the Archive

Re: numerical, bessel

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg55265] Re: [mg55196] numerical, bessel
  • From: yehuda ben-shimol <bsyehuda at>
  • Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:31:35 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <>
  • Reply-to: yehuda ben-shimol <bsyehuda at>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

The response of version 5.1 (windows XP) is different. The function
complaints that the AccuracyGoal is greater than the workingPrecision.
I changed it to
BesselJZeros[0, {17, 19}, WorkingPrecision -> 200, AccuracyGoal -> 30]
and got
2133353884299041810304818447503504584919833908, \
161016577322056334125588486684256210677678297, \
I assume that besides the warnings, taking care of a proper
WorkingPrecision value will lead to the required result.
Options are by no mean absolutly independent options. First it means
that you may define a value for an argumnet by using its NAME rather
than its position in the argument list as happen in traditional
programming languages. Options have default values, and their effect
on the function are not always independent. Maybe it is a good idea
that other values wil be changes according to an outside settiong of
options' values but for the moment it is not the case.
I hope this helps

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:36:27 -0500 (EST), Richard Fateman
<fateman at> wrote:
> << NumericalMath`BesselZeros`
> BesselJZeros[0, {17, 19}, WorkingPrecision -> 30]
> works, but
> BesselJZeros[0, {17, 19}, AccuracyGoal -> 30]
> just returns unevaluated.
> The documentation for NumericalMath`BesselZeros`  claims that
> AccuracyGoal, as well as WorkingPrecision is an option.  Apparently not.
> version 5.0

  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Does Mathematica 5 use multiple processors on SPARC?
  • Next by Date: How can I compute the Fourier transform of a unit disk and a unit ball analytically by using Mathematica?
  • Previous by thread: numerical, bessel
  • Next by thread: Re: numerical, bessel