BoeR

45 Reputation

6 Badges

8 years, 88 days

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by BoeR

@Carl Love 

A bit of a late reply from my side, but thanks thanks for the additional information!


Although now I am wondering what's best to do when starting a clean/new worksheet.
I mean: most times the displaying of the precision (in my case) is good enough when it's around 4 or 5 numbers behind or after the comma.
But in the case where I was looking for that intersection with 5 Digits (the worksheet you altered to find me answers for the intersections), it didn't gave me an answer. So now I'm thinking: I will just always set the amount of 'Digits' at the start of my worksheet at 15, and set the 'interface(displayprecision)' at 4 (or 5). Now will there for example be a case in which this will not work, or that you have encountered problems with this?

I'm just trying to avoid future-questions about this sort of situation.

Again: thanks a lot, I will definitely use the 'interface(displayprecision=...)' command.

@Carl Love 

A bit of a late reply from my side, but thanks thanks for the additional information!


Although now I am wondering what's best to do when starting a clean/new worksheet.
I mean: most times the displaying of the precision (in my case) is good enough when it's around 4 or 5 numbers behind or after the comma.
But in the case where I was looking for that intersection with 5 Digits (the worksheet you altered to find me answers for the intersections), it didn't gave me an answer. So now I'm thinking: I will just always set the amount of 'Digits' at the start of my worksheet at 15, and set the 'interface(displayprecision)' at 4 (or 5). Now will there for example be a case in which this will not work, or that you have encountered problems with this?

I'm just trying to avoid future-questions about this sort of situation.

Again: thanks a lot, I will definitely use the 'interface(displayprecision=...)' command.

Hi Carl Love,

I now notice I forgot to change the second fsolve expression, that was just stupid.
But anyway, the Digits I really would not have figured out myself.

About these 'Digits', what do you do when you make a Maple-file?
You never write down at the start of your sheet: 'Digits:=5' or 10?
Cause when people read through this file, they will often see this unnecessary information (like all these digits behind the comma), so that is why I set the digit-count to 5 at the start.

So you wouldn't recommend that to me?

But thank you, it works fine now.

Hi Carl Love,

I now notice I forgot to change the second fsolve expression, that was just stupid.
But anyway, the Digits I really would not have figured out myself.

About these 'Digits', what do you do when you make a Maple-file?
You never write down at the start of your sheet: 'Digits:=5' or 10?
Cause when people read through this file, they will often see this unnecessary information (like all these digits behind the comma), so that is why I set the digit-count to 5 at the start.

So you wouldn't recommend that to me?

But thank you, it works fine now.

I'm sorry I posted like the whole worksheet over here, but I didn't know how else to explain the problem.

The data that I used to find the intersection between the two lines is given on the screen ended with the semicolon. All other data I thought of as irrelevant I ended the commandline with a colon.

And although it is obvious by looking at the worksheet, but the commands I used to find the intersection points are below the third and the sixth graph.

I hope it all makes sense...

@Carl Love 

I like the way you explained it, many thanks for that!
I now understand it better, great.

Till next time.

@Carl Love 

I like the way you explained it, many thanks for that!
I now understand it better, great.

Till next time.

Hi Carl,

Thanks for the fast reply, much appreciate!
For my understandig: how should I interpret the first and second approach of 'second method'?
So I mean: rhs(test[2][]) and rhs(test[2][1]).

What exactly happens here? What does '[]' mean in the first approach and '[1]' after '[2]' in the second approach?
It's better for me to memorize when I understand what goes on.

But thanks! It works well.

Frank

Hi Carl,

Thanks for the fast reply, much appreciate!
For my understandig: how should I interpret the first and second approach of 'second method'?
So I mean: rhs(test[2][]) and rhs(test[2][1]).

What exactly happens here? What does '[]' mean in the first approach and '[1]' after '[2]' in the second approach?
It's better for me to memorize when I understand what goes on.

But thanks! It works well.

Frank

@Kitonum

Nice, I always like to have an alternative. Thank you for your answer.

Greetings

@Kitonum

Nice, I always like to have an alternative. Thank you for your answer.

Greetings

Hi Jaytreiman,

So is was 'Location' I had to look for...I just couldn't find it!
But thanks, this is indeed what I want.

Have a nice day

Frank

Hi Jaytreiman,

So is was 'Location' I had to look for...I just couldn't find it!
But thanks, this is indeed what I want.

Have a nice day

Frank

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

I did find this post when I was looking for an answer, but it was already from such a long time ago that I thought (actually assumed..) that there was made 'improvements', or a tool, or whatsoever, in the time that has passed.

Thanks for your answer anyway. It's always good to know that there are more ways to get the wanted result!

 

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

I did find this post when I was looking for an answer, but it was already from such a long time ago that I thought (actually assumed..) that there was made 'improvements', or a tool, or whatsoever, in the time that has passed.

Thanks for your answer anyway. It's always good to know that there are more ways to get the wanted result!

 

1 2 3 4 5 Page 2 of 5