[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: unexpected behaviour of Sum
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg126536] Re: unexpected behaviour of Sum
*From*: perplexed <yudumbo at gmail.com>
*Date*: Fri, 18 May 2012 05:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
*References*: <joq5h8$r20$1@smc.vnet.net> <jot5hm$am0$1@smc.vnet.net>
Thanks to everybody.
It is surely true I could write a better definition
for my functions (sod was just an example),
but still I do think that this is an imperfection in
the documentation of Sum.
First of all, this SymbolicSumThreshold option
is never cited in the documentation of Sum.
In general, there is never a hint to the fact that
Sum will try to sum symbolically in the case of
a definite sum. If I did know, I would have considered
writing a better function.
On the contrary, in the documentation of Sum I read :
"If the range of a sum is finite, i is typically assigned a sequence
of values,
with f being evaluated for each one."
and
"If a sum cannot be carried out explicitly by adding up a finite
number of terms,
Sum will attempt to find a symbolic result. In this case, f is first
evaluated symbolically."
With due respect,
I think that maybe a couple of lines should be added to the
documentation at least in the "Possible issues" section.
Prev by Date:
**InverseFunction returning working function or just a symbol**
Next by Date:
**Re: Partition Help**
Previous by thread:
**Re: unexpected behaviour of Sum**
Next by thread:
**Re: unexpected behaviour of Sum**
| |