network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 3 months |
| seen | Mar 7 at 11:03 | |
| stats | profile views | 69 |
|
Jun 15 |
comment |
Solution for equation system with piece-wise defined functions It does not consider the else case of Piecewise, does it? Then, I am not quite sure how to differentiate if the submitted function is defined piecewise. And finally, I would really like to know how I got conditional answers from Solve (or NSolve, not sure) that one time, because that Solution would be much cleaner. |
|
Jun 15 |
comment |
Solution for equation system with piece-wise defined functions No, I definitely need piecewise defined functions. Strictly speaking, this is exactly on of the cases (but not the only one), where I need this function. Want I am trying to do is writing a Module, where you input a "surface" and the starting point and direction of a light beam, and it calculates the light path upon potentially multiple reflection. All in 2D, so curves are enough. |
|
Jun 15 |
awarded | Promoter |
|
Jun 15 |
comment |
Solution for equation system with piece-wise defined functions I would prefer a general solution, but if nothing else comes, I am willing to give the bounty to an answer that solves the problem for the case where one curve is a straight line and only the other curve is arbitrarily continuous. Also, the first crossing point in a given direction from a defined point on the line would be enough. |
|
Jun 5 |
comment |
Solution for equation system with piece-wise defined functions Hm, this does not consider the "else" case of the Piecewise and it makes the whole thing specific to Piecewise functions. I don't fully understand 1) Why my code does not work, especially numerically and 2) What I did successfully yesterday. Unfortunately I deleted the test code, integrated this into a module and now it stopped working. |
|
Jun 5 |
asked | Solution for equation system with piece-wise defined functions |
|
Jun 5 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
Jun 5 |
comment |
Derivative from the left and right Great, I thought so :) My functions are not two crazy, mostly piecewise defined straight lines or short polynominals, so both ways should work just fine. |
|
Jun 5 |
accepted | Derivative from the left and right |
|
Jun 4 |
comment |
Derivative from the left and right I think this should do the trick, thanks. |
|
Jun 4 |
comment |
Struct equivalent in Mathematica? This answer is basically what I also do, when working with models in different situations. However, I am often facing one problem: Some values may depend on other values (for example lambda->512, k->2 Pi/lambda). As they may not ALWAYS depend on those values, I cannot integrate them into the model. Until now I just cascade lists of rules, but that is not very convenient. Any ideas? |
|
Jun 4 |
asked | Derivative from the left and right |
|
May 23 |
comment |
Shaping/simplifying equations in a certain way Although it does not seem to be the way to go, this was an interesting thing to learn. Thanks |
|
May 23 |
comment |
Shaping/simplifying equations in a certain way Oh :) I just looked at "Options" :) Thanks again that made a huge difference again. |
|
May 23 |
accepted | Shaping/simplifying equations in a certain way |
|
May 23 |
comment |
Shaping/simplifying equations in a certain way First, thanks a lot, I got it! However, and that may sound stupid: The only option in my documentation is Modulus? o_O Whats the "Simplify option?" Additionally as another complement, that was not evident to me: Collect[expr,Exp[q_]] also works. This is very important for mè because due to the complexity, I do not know x in Collect[expr,x].
Why is Collect not mentioned in the manual page for Coefficients, for example? |
|
May 23 |
asked | Shaping/simplifying equations in a certain way |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
Kramers-Kronig in Mathematica @Artes Thanks for the explanation. I work on the optical nm-scale. The Problem was that I forgot thet $\omega\to\lambda$ sustitution for $\text{d}\omega$. Awkward. |
|
Feb 16 |
comment |
Kramers-Kronig in Mathematica @Artes Can you shortly explain why there has to be an error? I think the integral is defined in both ways, as J. M. explained. Also though I don't have performance issues, I do have issues with the result. I differs by 13 orders of magnitude from the MathLab- and the experimental value. I would expect the extrema in an order of magnitude between 10^-4 and 10^-6. As the schape of curve itself looks fine though, I don't think this is an issue of the numerics - though I cannot find an error in my formula. |
|
Feb 15 |
accepted | Working with PhysicalConstants |
