MathGroup Archive 2010

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

Search the Archive

Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?


Thanks Daniel, I'll check it out.

Dave

dh wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> the simplest you can do is to use a user defined function.
> If you want to define a infix operator, look at the docu of the 
> Notation package, but this is not a topic I would tackle as a beginner.
> Daniel
>
> Dave Bird wrote:
>> Thanks Daniel for the info.
>>
>> How does one "design a new operator" which Simplify could use as an 
>> assumption. I'm a Mathematica newby, so please excuse my ignorance.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> dh wrote:
>>> Hi Dave,
>>> << does not have a meaning in mathematica. It is only a symbol. 
>>> Therefore your expression is not simplified.
>>> You may define a new operator for your purposes.
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> dbird wrote:
>>>> Please excuse if this has been answered before, but I can't find it.
>>>>
>>>> Is there some way to do a Simplify with assumptions using a 
>>>> NestedLessLess or something similar? For example:
>>>>
>>>> d=a+b
>>>> Simplify[d,NestedLessLess[a,b]]
>>>>
>>>> Answer is:
>>>> a+b
>>>>
>>>> Answer should be:
>>>> b
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


  • Prev by Date: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?
  • Next by Date: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
  • Previous by thread: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?
  • Next by thread: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?