Re: Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg106624] Re: [mg106531] Re: [mg106487] Simplify with NestedLessLess?*From*: Dave Bird <dbird at ieee.org>*Date*: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:12:49 -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> <4B5215AE.6020402@ieee.org> <op.u6niq5nhtgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local> <4B527F72.9010000@ieee.org> <op.u6nuvknatgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local> <op.u6nvhla9tgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local> <4B53A4B6.5010507@ieee.org> <op.u6pmhgrmtgfoz2@bobbys-imac.local>*Reply-to*: dbird at ieee.org

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... Dave 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? >> >

**References**:**Simplify with NestedLessLess?***From:*dbird <dbird@ieee.org>

**Re: Simplify with NestedLessLess?***From:*Dave Bird <dbird@ieee.org>