Reputation
790
Next privilege 1,000 Rep.
See votes, expandable usercard
Badges
5 17
Impact
~10k people reached

11h
comment Constraints for LP
If you are doing Linear Programming you might also take a look at this.
15h
revised Bug in Solve (Mathematica 9)
The issue seems to have been fixed.
15h
revised Wrong Limit in Mathematica 10.0.0
The title is misleading since it seems to only occur in the earliest release of Version 10.
15h
suggested approved edit on Wrong Limit in Mathematica 10.0.0
15h
suggested approved edit on Bug in Solve (Mathematica 9)
23h
comment ODE fitting to dataset
Just a minor advice but it really pays out to not use symbols in one's code that start with capital letters. By doing so there is complete safety as of not interfering with Mathematica's definitions. Eg. variables C or D or N already demonstrate the case.
1d
comment How to eliminate variables when using Solve[]
As I had posted with another question for Reduce (cf. Mr.Wizard's entry below). The feature is still documented and can be found here‌​.
1d
comment Behavior of Reduce with variables as domain
@Mr. Wizard - probably. There is of course also Reduce[ Eliminate[x + y == 1 && x y == 2, y] , x].
1d
comment Behavior of Reduce with variables as domain
It seems to still be documented as can be seen here‌​? Isn't Reduce a sepecial instance of Solve, eg. with the option Method->Reduce?
2d
comment Problem using NDSolveValue
You may try the option SolveDelayed -> True and take a look at this.
2d
answered Plot ParametricNDSolve
2d
comment Plot ParametricNDSolve
Set ´a[0] ==b[0] == 1` then use something like f = a[3] /. sol where 3 is the parameter value for w. You can then do Plot[ Evaluate@Abs[ f[t] ]^2 , {t,0,100},PlotRange -> All ]. Seems to work out fine.
2d
comment Evaluation problems with NDSolve using the fixed step ExplicitEuler-Method
@Michael E2 - That is a nice idea, albeit it does get cumbersome. I probably will go for your Mod[t, 1] solution and adapt the EventSeries accordingly as stated. After all a model is a model and not 'reality' - some compromise has to be made eventually.
2d
comment Plot ParametricNDSolve
Won't you need initial conditions, eg. a[0] == somevalue and b[0] == somevalue?
2d
comment NDSolve computes wrong solution?
This problem still persists as of Version 10.1
2d
accepted Evaluation problems with NDSolve using the fixed step ExplicitEuler-Method
May
19
answered Evaluation problems with NDSolve using the fixed step ExplicitEuler-Method
May
19
comment Evaluation problems with NDSolve using the fixed step ExplicitEuler-Method
Thank you. I corrected your WhenEvent solution to show x1'[t] == 0. Also note, that one can very well use this kind of event management with Euler - in fact I am using it to do the sampling-importance resampling with the particle filter. The latter is the reason I (believe) to need a fixed time step as equation and measurement noise are defined as discrete stochastic processes. Maybe I will not need fixed steps after all?
May
19
revised Evaluation problems with NDSolve using the fixed step ExplicitEuler-Method
Corrected the WhenEvent-solution to show x1'[t] == 0
May
19
suggested approved edit on Evaluation problems with NDSolve using the fixed step ExplicitEuler-Method