[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Solve never calls Equal?
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg120318] Re: Solve never calls Equal?
*From*: Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
*Date*: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 06:54:06 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <201107150118.VAA23606@smc.vnet.net> <ivovvt$qpa$1@smc.vnet.net> <201107160941.FAA08237@smc.vnet.net> <7BBB2BCC-0234-4BDA-A129-3270EBA623CE@mimuw.edu.pl> <ivuc93$gth$1@smc.vnet.net> <4E2377E3.2010606@cs.berkeley.edu> <j0115b$qao$1@smc.vnet.net>
On 7/18/2011 3:16 AM, Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think it is hard to claim that these test could be done only with
> Significance arithmetic. However, DanL has indicated that tracing Equal
> may not be effective if the system programs utilize some internal call
> to a system entry into PossibleZeroQ. The point remains that
>> redefining Equal as done here does not seem to adversely affect
> NSolve, Reduce, NIntegrate. Nor does it seem to take much time.
>>
>> RJF
>
> As usual, your reply avoids the only important thing, which is the
> example that I posted.
>
> Reduce[Exp[x] - x == 1/2&& Abs[x]< 1, x]
>
>
> Try it again yourself, with Equal replaced by SameQ and without. What do
> you see?
As posted, my note on 7/18 just preceding yours, shows what happens when
I tried it again, with the definition of Equal that I proposed, that
compares numbers with full accuracy. (Redefining Equal as SameQ is NOT
something I recommended because SameQ is hardly better. Furthermore, to
use SameQ for non-numbers is a very bad idea indeed since it has quite a
different semantics from Equal in that case. Equal[x,y] returns
unchanged if x,y are unknown. SameQ[x,y] returns False.)
>
> It's amazing that you can deny what you can and everyone can see and
> still claim that "Reduce has not been effected". It is also clear that
> you do not understand why I chose this particular example and why your
> improvement broke it.
Since my improvement did not break it, what can I say in response?
>
> Hint: this equation is being solved *exactly* and yet your "improvement"
> breaks it.
>
I should mention that the note I sent to mathgroup was accidentally not
sent to Andrzej at the same time, as I usually do. Perhaps he would not
have written with such certainty then.
>
> The main problem is that you don't understand the mathematics involved
> here. The fact that you than produces a lot of examples that have
> obviously no relevance to this issue confirms this.
What can I say, "I'm rubber you're glue"?
>
> This sort of thing is not new Richard. I have already offered, to
> re-post some of your past posts which show you lack of understanding of
> the basics of Mathematica. But I can also post some examples, like this
> one, that show that you do not understand the mathematics behind it, and
> yet arrogantly presume to be instructing those who do (at least better
> than you).
More often I think that I understand what is going on in Mathematica,
but believe it to be wrong. You choose to interpret it as not
understanding Mathematica.
RJF
>
Prev by Date:
**Re: Solve never calls Equal?**
Next by Date:
**Re: Unexpected Behavior: SetDelayed versus Set**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Solve never calls Equal?**
Next by thread:
**Re: Numerical accuracy/precision - this is a bug or a feature?**
| |