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.email@example.com> <4B4FAC81.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B4FB26F.email@example.com> <201001150821.DAA29881@smc.vnet.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B5215AE.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B527F72.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4B53A4B6.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- 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? >> >