[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg106594] Re: [mg106531] Re: [mg106487] Simplify with NestedLessLess?
*From*: Dave Bird <dbird at ieee.org>
*Date*: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:13:24 -0500 (EST)
*References*: <201001141049.FAA19892@smc.vnet.net> <4B4F39E7.1070002@wolfram.com> <4B4FAC81.7000108@ieee.org> <4B4FB26F.7050702@wolfram.com> <201001150821.DAA29881@smc.vnet.net> <op.u6k8eysrtgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local>
*Reply-to*: dbird at ieee.org
Interesting! But, I don't think I am correctly communicating what I'm
after yet. (Although, I admit that I am struggling some to keep up with
you guys in your Mathematica replies due to my inexperience.)
The original expression that I put up for illustration is:
-Cf^2 L2^2 Rg^2 Vg^4+3 (4 C Rg^2 Vd^2+4 Cf Rg^2 Vd^2+2 C Rg^2 Vd Vg)
We compare 4 C Rg^2 Vd^2 to 4 Cf Rg^2 Vd^2 because the two terms share
common coefficients so that they "reduce" to (4 Rg^2 Vd^2+4 Rg^2 Vd^2)
(C+Cf) . Thus it becomes obvious that C may be discarded w.r.t. Cf.
Please forgive if I have missed the correct application of your
suggestion, and thanks for the interest.
Dave
DrMajorBob wrote:
> Series[-Cf^2 L2^2 Rg^2 Vg^4 +
> 3 (4 C Rg^2 Vd^2 + 4 Cf Rg^2 Vd^2 + 2 C Rg^2 Vd Vg), {C, 0,
> 5}] // Simplify
>
> SeriesData[C, 0, {
> Cf Rg^2 (12 Vd^2 - Cf L2^2 Vg^4), 6 Rg^2 Vd (2 Vd + Vg)}, 0, 6, 1]
>
> Bobby
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:21:09 -0600, Dave Bird <dbird at ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> Not infinitesimals. I'm working in analog circuit design/analysis. I
>> have a 3 pole symbolic circuit response (third order) which is not
>> easily separable. I can use Mathematica to find the three roots of the
>> response. But, the roots are, of course, very messy. I know that certain
>> elements in the circuit are orders of magnitude larger than other like
>> elements - capacitors in this case. For example, one small section of
>> one root is
>>
>> -Cf^2 L2^2 Rg^2 Vg^4+3 (4 C Rg^2 Vd^2+4 Cf Rg^2 Vd^2+2 C Rg^2 Vd Vg)
>>
>> I know that C<<Cf. By careful inspection, I can see that the first term
>> in the parens will drop out compared to the second term in the parens. I
>> would like Mathematica to do this without my having to examine it so
>> closely since there are many other like situations.
>>
>> This kind of situation occurs in many other engineering situations.
>>
>> Hope this helps clarify.
>>
>> Thanks for the interest.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel Lichtblau wrote:
>>> Dave Bird wrote:
>>>> Thanks Daniel for the observation. I forgot to add that both a, and b
>>>> are real positive. That, of course would have to be added to the
>>>> assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> It's still not obvious what you are wanting to do. I have the idea you
>>> are working in some sense with infinitesmals. If so, I doubt Simplify
>>> would be the best tool for removing them; it really can only do that
>>> if it is told, in some way, to replace them with zero. How might one
>>> instruct Simplify to figure that out?
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>> Daniel Lichtblau wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> I fail to see why the result should be b.
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel Lichtblau
>>>>> Wolfram Research
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Prev by Date:
**Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness, con brio**
Next by Date:
**Re: syntax extension, precedence, Notation`**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?**
Next by thread:
**Re: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?**
| |