MathGroup Archive 2010

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg106624] Re: [mg106531] Re: [mg106487] Simplify with NestedLessLess?
  • From: Dave Bird <dbird at>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:12:49 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <> <> <> <> <> <op.u6k8eysrtgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local> <> <op.u6niq5nhtgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local> <> <op.u6nuvknatgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local> <op.u6nvhla9tgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local> <> <op.u6pmhgrmtgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local>
  • Reply-to: dbird at

I completely agree with you here. This has been an eye-opener for me. 
Such an ordinarily trivial operation done so often, both in engineering 
and physics, is anything but trivial in it's implications...


DrMajorBob wrote:
> for some value of the word "work". (I don't think you've defined, 
> precisely, what you're looking for.)
> <snip>
>> This works for the test expression, obviously. But, can it be made to 
>> work for a more complex expression containing say a radical?

  • Prev by Date: Re: Testing Mathematica Expressions?
  • Next by Date: Initialization problem in a DynamicModule
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?
  • Next by thread: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?