Re: bug in Print
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg131852] Re: bug in Print
- From: "Barrie Stokes" <Barrie.Stokes at newcastle.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 04:44:28 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
- Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
- Delivered-to: mathgroup-outx@smc.vnet.net
- Delivered-to: mathgroup-newsendx@smc.vnet.net
- References: <20131017041734.76D616A28@smc.vnet.net>
Thanks for your friendly question.
My point was simply that the result of MatrixPower[mA, i] was possibly more general (while correct) than the original poster realised.
What I found reassuring was the generality of the output from MatrixPower[mA, i], obviously, not the presence of a bug (if it was one).
If you read my post a bit more carefully, I said " ... the following, which ... I found reassuring", and the following was code which showed that the large and general output collapsed to the naive expectation with /.{->3}.
Sorry for my lack of clarity.
>>> Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net> 10/17/13 3:17 PM >>>
On 10/16/13 at 4:58 AM, Barrie.Stokes at newcastle.edu.au (Barrie
Stokes) wrote:
>I apologise if someone has already suggested the following, which I
>at least found reassuring.
>(Sometimes Mathematica is more general than you expect.)
>Clear[i]
>mA = {{0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, 1}, {1, 0, 0}};
>result = MatrixPower[mA, i];
>result // Short
>result /. {i -> 3} // FullSimplify
And the point of your post is?
The subject line mentions a bug in Print yet the code you posted
makes no use of Print. And your first sentence indicates you
found the result to be "reassuring". Surely you don't find bugs
reassuring. Were you expecting a different result from
Mathematica than you got?
- References:
- Re: bug in Print
- From: Bill Rowe <readnews@sbcglobal.net>
- Re: bug in Print