[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?**
| |