|
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: What's wrong with this assuming?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg111113] Re: What's wrong with this assuming?
- From: Bob Hanlon <hanlonr at cox.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:55:43 -0400 (EDT)
- Reply-to: hanlonr at cox.net
Use the assumption directly in Simplify or FullSimplify
Simplify[(x^2 + x)^2 + h, x^2 + x == h]
h (h+1)
FullSimplify[(x^2 + x)^2 + h, x^2 + x == h]
h (h+1)
Or put Simplify or FullSimplify within the scope of the Assuming construct
Assuming[x^2 + x == h, Simplify[(x^2 + x)^2 + h]]
h (h+1)
Assuming[x^2 + x == h, FullSimplify[(x^2 + x)^2 + h]]
h (h+1)
Bob Hanlon
---- Sam Takoy <sam.takoy at yahoo.com> wrote:
=============
Hi,
I have a situation where I have to simplify an expression that contains
x and h, but x is given implicitly by h, so I can't explicitly eliminate
it. So here's a simpler example that I'm trying and it does nothing:
Assuming[x^2 + x == h, (x^2 + x)^2+h] // FullSimplify
Is there a way to make this work?
Thanks!
--
Bob Hanlon
Prev by Date:
Brillouin function for a Ferromagnet
Next by Date:
Re: Scoping constructs Block, Module, ModuleBlock violate principle of
Previous by thread:
What's wrong with this assuming?
Next by thread:
Re: What's wrong with this assuming?
|