Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

Okay, I am sorry if I gave you that impression. I have been reading everything you said and have not intentionally put anything other than what I think in my replies. My apology if I seemed argumentative, I was not trying to be.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

No, no. There is really no need to apologize. Maybe tomorrow, when I log on with the laptop, I will have a better chance of explaining what I want.

You do not seem argumentative. Just a bit stubborn. But, then again, I am no better.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

Not stubborn, passionate about numerical methods.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

Well, I did not attack it as a numerical method.

But let's leave that for tomorrow.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

Hmmm, it is tomorrow and I do not see ole anonimnystefy here.

So, I will argue with myself:

bobbym: I think the PSLQ is great.

bobbym: It sure is, it was voted one of the top 10 algorithms of the 20th century.

bobbym: I did not know that...

bobbym: Possibly it was voted number one.

bobbym: I will tell anonimnystefy when I see him.

bobbym: You do that, he might listen to you.

more to follow...

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

You have not been here whole day while I was on the laptop.

Anyway, I think you have the wrong idea. I have nothibg against PSLQ. I am kust saying that it is not a method for solving integrals, because it is always paired up with some way of numerical integration.

On the other hand, I do think that contour integration is a method for solving integrals, because to solve an integral with it you do not need anything besides it submethods.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

That is you must admit a strange distinction about why one is and why another one is not.

Let me say that coupled together PSLQ and numerical integration will do a heck of a lot more integrals than contour integration.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

It is not strange. Look at it this way: contour integration is a method for solving integrals, but solely finding the residues isn't.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

contour integration is a method for solving integrals, but solely finding the residues isn't

Numerical integration is a method for solving integrals but using the PSLQ isn't.

Sounds the same as your post!

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

There you go!

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

But using both is a powerful method to solve definite integrals.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

That is true.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

So did you do one with your PSLQ?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

I haven't yet. I explored the world of Mathematica.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

How did you do that?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

Well, I searched for different things.

I found an implementation of a random walk, for example.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

A random walk can be done in M extremely easily. You use the accumulate function.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

I think he used NestList.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

M has a 1000 ways to do everything and that is its greatest strength and its biggest weakness.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

Why is it a weakness?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

The learning curve is not very steep for ordinary humans like myself.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

Hm. I'm not sure if that is a weakness on M's side or the user side.

Anyway, have you ran a simulation for the first two parts of the rat problem?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

Yes, and it is not getting Agnishom's answer for c) so I would like to check it again before showing it.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

Why not post it anyway? If there is an error somewhere, there are better chances of spotting it.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,066

When 2 answers do not agree that worries me a lot. Just a wee bit more tabasco!

Of course the user is weak, it is up to the package to help him out. Not everyone is a Newton or reptile spawned. Anyway 6000 commands and 500 added on each new release can be daunting.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline