Services & ResourcesWolfram ForumsMathGroup Archive

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

Re: Re: bad Mathieu functions

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg108325] Re: [mg108279] Re: [mg108226] bad Mathieu functions
• From: becko BECKO <becko565 at hotmail.com>
• Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:00:09 -0500 (EST)
• References: <201003121212.HAA13756@smc.vnet.net>

Nevermind. I think I'm getting the point (thanks gekko for detailed reply).
 With MachinePrecision, Mathematica doesn't keep track of precision (in the interest of speed), so there is no way to issue a warning since Mathematica doesn't know the precision of the result. If I specify the precision xplicitly (using tick marks) Mathematica will keep track of precision (making it a bit slower), and then I'll know the precision of the result.


> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:12:04 -0500
> From: becko565 at hotmail.com
> Subject: [mg108279] Re: [mg108226] bad Mathieu functions
> To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
>
> Thanks Carl, Peter and Daniel.
>
> Guess I was too hasty to send that bug report... Though it would be useful
> to issue a warning or something (perhaps putting it in the Possible Issues
> section of the help on Mathieu functions). I'm kind of falling in love with
>  Mathematica, so it's reassuring to know that this was my mistake and not
>  Mathematica's.
>
> Another question. How do I know that WorkingPrecision->50 is enough? What if I wanted to Plot all the way to q=100000?

 		 	   		 

• References:
  • Re: bad Mathieu functions
    • From: becko BECKO <becko565@hotmail.com>