Re: Work on Basic Mathematica Stephen!
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg130809] Re: Work on Basic Mathematica Stephen!
- From: Peter Klamser <klamser at googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 04:35:46 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
... thank you for the response. Every WRI employee writes this since years, but "fuzz" stays "fuzz" and "fuzz" is not essential. Peter 2013/5/16 Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>: > If I understand this proposal aa), then I completely disagree. It is *essential* to have the ability to use a function Chop that, e.g., does the following: > > Chop[4. + 10.^-16 I] > 4. > > The reason is that even when one starts with strictly real functions, it is often the case that Mathematica uses complex-function methods and, due to roundoff, returns results with some pure imaginary "fuzz". > > On May 16, 2013, at 3:28 AM, Peter Klamser <klamser at googlemail.com> wrote: > >> . .. A) First proposal: Identify useless or false constructions in Mathematica >> >> aa) Eliminating Chop for complex numbers. Complex numbers are >> oderless and therefore nobody call estimate, weather the distance of 1 >> + 10^-google i to the real numbers is small or big. Chop is the >> result of Mathematica design, that it presents often complex results, where >> real values are the simpler result and can be reached by >> ComplexExpand. >> The simplest solution is always the best solution. > > --- > Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu > Mathematics & Statistics Dept. > Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) > University of Massachusetts 413 545-2838 (W) > 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 > Amherst, MA 01003-9305 > > > > >