Re: unable to FullSimplify
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg66010] Re: unable to FullSimplify
- From: "Vladimir" <vladimir347 at yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200604160545.BAA07958@smc.vnet.net> <200604181056.GAA14321@smc.vnet.net> <e24uhn$5s7$1@smc.vnet.net> <200604200914.FAA05331@smc.vnet.net> <e29qvc$m59$1@smc.vnet.net> <200604241001.GAA08924@smc.vnet.net> <81DDADBF-5461-4A2E-9F3C-6297C85B0C30@mimuw.edu.pl> <e2kqi2$7fd$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Adam Strzebonski wrote: > But this has a really huge complexity, and it still doesn't help Hmm... Built-in FullSimplify performs exceptionally well most of the time, i.e. it simplifies Expand[(a + b + c + d)^80], which contains over a million leaves without any problem at all. But it seems there is really small subset of problematic expressions. So what's the reason for this problem? Fundamental math, which prevents universal solution? Or solution is possible but not desired due to performance reasons? And the main question - how to fix it without the knowledge of particular expression. If problematic pattern is rare and well-defined, maybe it can be made to be "recognized" and simplified as a "special case" without adding too much complexity? And thanks for your detailed and insightful replies! -- Vladimir
- References:
- unable to FullSimplify
- From: vladimir347@yahoo.com
- Re: unable to FullSimplify
- From: "Vladimir" <vladimir347@yahoo.com>
- Re: unable to FullSimplify
- From: "Vladimir" <vladimir347@yahoo.com>
- Re: unable to FullSimplify
- From: "Vladimir" <vladimir347@yahoo.com>
- unable to FullSimplify