Wrote

Thank you Alvaro for your interest in these problems. Here is the file once more.

Hi Radovan. Thanks you for answer. I'm not clear, I refer to the initials conditions in the mathcad worksheet, phi, x and y. And k too. Are the same than in the smath file?

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Hi. Don't worry for the mathcad values, SMath is powerful. Here a way to solve Radovan's flash problem.

Primer38-doomed 2.sm (71 KiB) downloaded 75 time(s).

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Wrote

Hi. Don't worry for the mathcad values, SMath is powerful. Here a way to solve Radovan's flash problem.

Primer38-doomed 2.sm (71 KiB) downloaded 75 time(s).

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Thank you Alvaro very much . That's exactly I was talking about

It could be solved by using your great function SNRxy() function. I did it long time ago by some similar home made functions as well. The main point is that we should also could have solve the same problem with some of the functions from, say, this NonlinearSolves plugin. You might use, say Broyden() or some other function but it seems it does not work anymore, or at least I forgot or do not know how to use it. As I mentioned before, NonlinearSolvers plugin (IMHO) is the only one adressing these problems but it was not updated for a long time.

Regards,
Radovan

Just for the record. Slightly changed, maybe less correct posed, but solved correctly

To excuse myself and thank Alvaro and Jean once more. I unintentionally deleted some regions regarding initial conditions and introduced a confusion a bit, and figured out by rechecking the things.

Primer38-undoomed.sm (71 KiB) downloaded 55 time(s).

Regards,
Radovan

Wrote

Just for the record.

... a bit more Pro.

Wrote

but solved correctly

Interesting to know SNRxy(a,N,εx,εy) works fine in your latest SS version.
Two pieces of code SS 6179 does not digest [@ big arrow].
FindRoot works fine manual patience, but could not make work in forloop.
As done, it saturates @ 12 decimals with the two degree of freedom.
I have done my best for myself if any useful for more visitors.
I could see some Matlab code wrt matrices A,B but does explain where
they come from. Still missing some abstract for readers.
Thanks Radovan, Alvaro ... most appreciated.
In short => SS 6179 does not cut the mustard ! a British expression.

Jean

Project Solve Flashing Copy.sm (204 KiB) downloaded 52 time(s).

Than you Jean for being supportive,

It crossed my mind that my first post here was almost 10 years ago. It seems that I am repeating myself periodically.

Best Regards,
Radovan

Hi. The troubles that I find solving this is that can't use the normal call for functions, as it is showed at the end, where fails to call the same Newton-Raphson code, but with F(1) and C(1).
This must to be some kind of bug calling functions when the definition of the functions it's complicate or implies the vectorization for the args.

Primer38-undoomed - redoomed.sm (75 KiB) downloaded 51 time(s).

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Wrote

The troubles that I find solving this is that can't use the normal call for functions,

The "redooomed" downloaded but can't open yet. It might suffer same
auto-consumption than FindRoot, i.e: it does not clear itself within a for loop.
It must be called from an external forloop. Will post soon a semi-elegant way
of descending the FindRoot that needs several iterations as it is ± 3 decimals
from the Smath native module. I get 0.0000000000001 as final sanity solutions.
Takes ~ 5 minutes of manual iterations ... Jean is happy !
Cheers Alvaro.

Wrote

It seems that I am repeating myself periodically.

Like when you start speaking to yourself, indicates the Man is in good growing conditions.
That version is refreshed in 8 manual iterations, easy to use.
Start by the very initials [xo, yo]

Cheers ... Jean



Project Solve Flashing Copy.sm (209 KiB) downloaded 44 time(s).

Wrote

Hi. The troubles that I find solving this is that can't use the normal call for functions, as it is showed at the end, where fails to call the same Newton-Raphson code, but with F(1) and C(1).
This must to be some kind of bug calling functions when the definition of the functions it's complicate or implies the vectorization for the args.

Primer38-undoomed - redoomed.sm (75 KiB) downloaded 51 time(s).

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Thank you Alvaro for this. This was a logical thing to do in order to improve your function. Moreover, the "spooky" thing "xx-not defined" appears here and there and I often do not have a clue why. It often appears when you want to use eval(). Someone might have an explanation for this effect you represented in this example, but it still makes me confused and it seems it will remain that way. I suppose you understand now why I called this one as "doomed".



Regards,
Radovan

Wrote

the "spooky" thing "xx-not defined"

"can't calculate spooky" because like Mathcad, can't trace back
in the program [generally]. The other spooky about FindRoot
"can't find variables ... try a more specific algorithm "
Often, we get red spooky like you show but calculations are done.
Just adapt a bit of coding to calm down SS from complaining.
Simply spooky syntax as you show.

Jean

In build 7251, there is a problem with Taylor(), see screenshot. Bugreport filed as SS-4631

Taylor.sm (21 KiB) downloaded 49 time(s).

I encountered the bug as well in the latest version (build 8253) with plugin version 1.1.7097.23301, and as far as I can see, the latest update is from 2019: https://en.smath.com/view/618b7e96-330a-406a-b055-9e577672f0b8/summary


Is this plugin still being maintained, or should I look for another solution?

Thanks in advance!

Hello,

you can circumvent the issue using a single-argument line()




I'll check if there is a solid way to fix it, preprocessing in symbolic functions sometimes is hard to handle in many ways....

Hi,

Thanks for your reply!
However, I cannot reproduce the workaround.


I also thought the 2nd argument was supposed to be 'x', the variable of the function, but you use '2'? Do I have a wrong understanding?

Thanks again.

Wrote

However, I cannot reproduce the workaround.

Try changing the optimization on the region that shows the error to "symbolic" or "none"

Wrote

I also thought the 2nd argument was supposed to be 'x', the variable of the function, but you use '2'?

It can be either a number or a variable name (x, x0, z, ...).

As far as Taylor is concerned, there is no bug in Smath.
Taylor is not a function. Simply a Classroom quick plot demo.
What it plots is not otherwise possible to evaluate.
However, you can play/productive with the spooky Taylor.
Cheers ... Jean ... hope it clarifies.

Thank you all for the replies!

Wrote

However, you can play/productive with the spooky Taylor.

The missing document.

Maths Taylor Spooky.sm (20 KiB) downloaded 33 time(s).