|
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Symbolic Derivatives of Unspecified Functions
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg70732] Re: Symbolic Derivatives of Unspecified Functions
- From: David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:39:58 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <ehf1mp$5e9$1@smc.vnet.net> <ehhqlj$7cm$1@smc.vnet.net> <ehkc7f$hjf$1@smc.vnet.net>
Hello,
A definition such as r[qi_,qj_]:=r[qi,qj] (or the equivalent using =) is
meaningless - it simply defines r in terms of itself - this sends
Mathematica into a spin, which produces your iteration limit error. I am
sorry if you thought I was suggesting this - I was merely quoting a bit
of your original message!
The crucial thing to understand is that you can differentiate a function
(or use it in other ways) without providing any definition at all - this
is the appropriate thing to do.
David Bailey
http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk
Prev by Date:
Re: ListPlot and ListPlot3D
Next by Date:
Re: ListPlot and ListPlot3D
Previous by thread:
Re: Symbolic Derivatives of Unspecified Functions
Next by thread:
How to specify the starting parameter search point when using NonlinearRegress
|