[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Higher precision in Error function Erf[] needed.
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg127141] Re: Higher precision in Error function Erf[] needed.
*From*: "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma at 12000.org>
*Date*: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 05:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
*References*: <jsbt4i$6pq$1@smc.vnet.net> <jseeua$i3d$1@smc.vnet.net> <jsjqhg$d2j$1@smc.vnet.net> <jsmg81$1jj$1@smc.vnet.net>
*Reply-to*: nma at 12000.org
On 6/30/2012 4:17 AM, Ray Koopman wrote:
>
> Just alter the precision of its input. First define
>
> f[x_,n_] := 8*(10 - Abs[10 - 20000*SetPrecision[x,n]])
>
> Then
>
> Plot[Exp@#*(1-Erf@Sqrt@#)&@f[x,20], {x,0,10^-3}, Compiled->False]
>
> works fine.
>
fyi;
using Mathematica 8, the 'Compiled->False' is shown in RED
letters, meaning is not valid option for Plot.
on a side note, I myself, and this is just a styling thing,
when using pure function, find it easier to use @ for
only the RHS of the pure function. Hence the above command
would become
Plot[ Exp[#] * (1-Erf[Sqrt[#]])& @f[x,20], {x,0,10^-3}]
vs.
Plot[Exp@# * (1-Erf@Sqrt@#)& @f[x,20], {x,0,10^-3}]
Again, just different styling, all is valid, but for me, I
find the first case above a little easier to read, since @ is
used only for the pure function argument.
regards,
--Nasser
Prev by Date:
**Re: case of inconsistent API between Drop and Part?**
Next by Date:
**Re: Numerical integration over an arbitrary 2D domain**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Solid modeling using Manipulate**
Next by thread:
**Re: Higher precision in Error function Erf[] needed.**
| |