|
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Rational[a,b] vs Rational[1,2]
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg116655] Re: Rational[a,b] vs Rational[1,2]
- From: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 05:22:42 -0500 (EST)
That seems reasonable, but like Andrzej, I don't see why anybody
would/should type Rational[a,b] if he doesn't know what he's doing.
Bobby
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:21:07 -0600, Richard Fateman
<fateman at eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> On 2/21/2011 6:26 PM, DrMajorBob wrote:
>> I think Mathematica expects us to create rationals in the usual way...
>> by dividing integers. When we do, Mathematica removes common factors
>> and can end up with an Integer, a Rational, Indeterminate, or
>> ComplexInfinity.
>>
>> If you try another method... good luck!
> A simple solution is to define Rational[a_,b_] := a/b /;
> Or[Not[IntegerQ[a],IntegerQ[b]]
>
> wouldn't you agree?
>
> RJF
>
--
DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
Prev by Date:
Re: Vector Runge-Kutta ODE solver with compilation?
Next by Date:
Integral with singularities
Previous by thread:
Re: Rational[a,b] vs Rational[1,2]
Next by thread:
Color grid with holes in it, to visualize overlapping mappings.
|