meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 5 months |
| seen | Apr 20 at 7:49 | |
| stats | profile views | 3 |
|
Mar 5 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Dec 22 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Dec 22 |
answered | How do I extract a number from a string? |
|
Dec 22 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Dec 22 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Dec 22 |
accepted | Create an adaptive amount of local variables for error propagation |
|
Dec 22 |
comment |
Create an adaptive amount of local variables for error propagation Thanks for your detailed answer, although I struggling a bit to understand it. I'm not studying physics but am required to do a few chosen experiments to see and learn the basics. So I chose the opportunity to do things, I could probably do by hand or with excel, with mathematica in order to learn it. But I am interested in learning, so I will try to work your solution out. |
|
Dec 22 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Dec 22 |
revised |
Create an adaptive amount of local variables for error propagation added 1183 characters in body |
|
Dec 22 |
comment |
Create an adaptive amount of local variables for error propagation Thank you for your answer, i wasn't aware of the possibility of downvalues. I just assumed that I would need a new symbol for every value. I adjusted my code accordingly The track, which lead to this approach started with the problem, that the derivate function doesn't accept lists as arguments and my first idea was to use variables as intermediate. In addition the comment from acl about the wrong approach got me thinking and I realized, that the sequence solves the problem, avoiding the variables. |
|
Dec 21 |
awarded | Student |
|
Dec 21 |
asked | Create an adaptive amount of local variables for error propagation |
