Re: Defining Functions and Simplifying Solutions

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg90528] Re: Defining Functions and Simplifying Solutions
• From: Jens-Peer Kuska <kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
• Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 05:57:23 -0400 (EDT)
• Organization: Uni Leipzig
• References: <g56t8m\$3pq\$1@smc.vnet.net>

```Hi,

a) no it can't be simpler and a function should know the variables

b) {{a -> (0. (e1 \[Beta]1 +
e2 \[Beta]2 \[Lambda]))/(rA \[Tau]^2)}} // Chop
or
{{a ->
(0. (e1 \[Beta]1 +
e2 \[Beta]2 \[Lambda]))/(rA \[Tau]^2)}} /.  0. -> 0

Regards
Jens

Locus wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I actually have to questions:
>
> 1. Is there a more handy way to define/use functions as compared to the following way (which works, but is complicated always typing the variable definitions):
>
> G[\[Alpha]1_Real, \[Alpha]2_Real, e1_Real,
>   e2_Real] = \[Alpha]1*e1 + \[Alpha]2*e2
>
> v[G_Real] = a*G[\[Alpha]1, \[Alpha]2, e1, e2] + b
>
>
> 2. After several steps, I receive the following solution
>
> {{a -> (0. (e1 \[Beta]1 + e2 \[Beta]2 \[Lambda]))/(rA \[Tau]^2)}}
>
> which obviously equals zero. How can I 'force' Mathematica to display only 0 as result and not such a unnessecarily complicated expression? FullSimplify does not work here.
>
>
> Thanks a lot!
>

```

• Prev by Date: Re: Coupled second-order nonlinear ODEs
• Next by Date: Re: How to replace TextListPlot ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Defining Functions and Simplifying Solutions
• Next by thread: Re: Defining Functions and Simplifying Solutions