RC3: SMath Studio 0.98.5918 (15 March 2016) - Сообщения
#1 Опубликовано: 15.03.2016 13:32:04
SMath Studio 0.98.5918 available
Latest changes (against SMath Studio 0.98.5914)
- SS-125: Inserting Chinese symbols fixed;
- SS-2305: Situations when it was impossible to paste part of the equation into another equation fixed;
- SS-2280: Graphic glitch in Extension Manager form on plugin uninstall fixed;
- SS-2298: Exception on pressing Open button from Donate dialog fixed;
- SS-206: Unexpected worksheet scrolling on pressing Delete/Backspace when cursor is in the right part of equation fixed;
- SS-112: Fixed issues when it was impossible to open file because of incorrect color specified in file content;
- SS-35: Missing tooltips from side panel fixed;
- SS-51: Issue partially handled: behavior is correct in case of work with one collapsed area - space will be adjusted automatically;
- Implemented ability to specify printer name when printing from command prompt;
- Worksheet evaluation starts now on print or export from command prompt (required to update regions states to display them correctly).
Download
- Desktop Windows (desktop computer with Windows OS):
SMathStudioDesktop.0_98_5918.Setup.msi (Date: 15.03.2016. File size: 1.62MB) - Desktop Linux (desktop computer with Linux OS):
SMathStudioDesktop.0_98_5918.Mono.tar.gz (Date: 15.03.2016. File size: 1.06MB) - last version of Mono distributive required! - Cloud version (all modern browsers supported):
SMath Studio in the Cloud (Date: 15.03.2016.)
9 пользователям понравился этот пост
NDTM Amarasekera 15.03.2016 13:39:00, ioan92 15.03.2016 13:42:00, frapuano 15.03.2016 13:55:00, Davide Carpi 15.03.2016 13:57:00, уни 15.03.2016 14:02:00, sergio 15.03.2016 14:42:00, Alexander O. Melnik 15.03.2016 17:58:00, Mike Kaganski 16.03.2016 00:57:00, Radovan Omorjan 16.03.2016 02:53:00
#2 Опубликовано: 15.03.2016 23:52:19
roots2polynomial.sm
Hi Andrey,
The worksheet in attachment doesn't work in 0.98, but works fine in 0.97.
The error message is "s - not defined". It's bothering me, because of I've used the functions in several documents.
Another issue is that new version 0.98 stays non-responsive for a few minutes when I try to quit SmathStudio.
Best regards
Hi Andrey,
The worksheet in attachment doesn't work in 0.98, but works fine in 0.97.
The error message is "s - not defined". It's bothering me, because of I've used the functions in several documents.
Another issue is that new version 0.98 stays non-responsive for a few minutes when I try to quit SmathStudio.
Best regards
#3 Опубликовано: 16.03.2016 00:20:33
I'm incompetent wrt your long program w/o example.
Nothing to see => nothing to do. Something to see,
use the solve block ... Works fine J0, J1, Y0, Y1.
Jean
Bessel JY.sm
Nothing to see => nothing to do. Something to see,
use the solve block ... Works fine J0, J1, Y0, Y1.
Jean
Bessel JY.sm
#4 Опубликовано: 16.03.2016 00:55:01
... for the cubic equation, there is in "Samples"
a more robust "Cubic Solver"
a more robust "Cubic Solver"
#5 Опубликовано: 16.03.2016 01:05:49
#6 Опубликовано: 16.03.2016 01:26:23
You seem to cheat using one-liners that depend on inner order of evaluation. It's not fixed, may change in any new version, so it's unsafe to do that.
Also, you should keep in mind that evaluation defaults to symbolic; so in loops it's often advisable to use eval() to force SMath store direct value to a variable, instead if (sometimes very complex) recursive formula it had stacked up to this point.
roots2polynomial-fixed.sm
С уважением,
Михаил Каганский
2 пользователям понравился этот пост
#7 Опубликовано: 16.03.2016 02:01:31
By the way, Andrey, could you please state on the following questions:
1. Currently, boolean operands are always evaluated regardless if it's already possible to deduce final result. E.g.: (x:=1)V(y:=5) will assign both x and y, despite it's enough to only calc left (or right) part to know the boolean result. Could you please confirm or refute that this will always be so (may I rely on this to create simple (not order-dependent) one-liners?).
2. Currently, boolean operands are evaluated from left to right. E.g.: (x:=1)V(eval(y:=x)) will make y to be 1, while (eval(y:=x))V(x:=1) will give an "Undefined" error. Could you please confirm or refute that this will always be so (may I rely on this to create complex (order-dependent) one-liners?).
Thank you for your work!
1. Currently, boolean operands are always evaluated regardless if it's already possible to deduce final result. E.g.: (x:=1)V(y:=5) will assign both x and y, despite it's enough to only calc left (or right) part to know the boolean result. Could you please confirm or refute that this will always be so (may I rely on this to create simple (not order-dependent) one-liners?).
2. Currently, boolean operands are evaluated from left to right. E.g.: (x:=1)V(eval(y:=x)) will make y to be 1, while (eval(y:=x))V(x:=1) will give an "Undefined" error. Could you please confirm or refute that this will always be so (may I rely on this to create complex (order-dependent) one-liners?).
Thank you for your work!
С уважением,
Михаил Каганский
1 пользователям понравился этот пост
Davide Carpi 16.03.2016 04:37:00
#8 Опубликовано: 16.03.2016 14:04:43
Thank you for questions!
I think it is because of some plug-in you have installed on your system. Try to close SMath Studio, then rename SMath folder to SMath_temp in %APPDATA%, then start SMath Studio again and try to close it to see how much time closing will take.
It is because of the following string (in two places):
Starting from SMath Studio 0.98 application handles calculation parts from left to right when no other rules to follow. And it became a rule now which will remain the same in future. So you just need to change places for 1-st and 3-rd operations in your matrix:
Sorry for this, but before 0.98 order of operations in such cases was not actually strictly defined.
Correction: it was unsafe. Now it is absolutely legal way to do such operations. A bit tricky, but legal.
Very good question! For some reason (ah, my stupid head) never thought about it. But later better then never... I just did corrections to boolean AND and OR and the final results you can see on the screenshot:
I think, answer is in the screenshot above.
P.S.: I do realize that these changes may result in errors in some existing calculations, but we need to accept these new rules in order to be sure such issues will never appear again in future + rules of a game are now defined.
Best regards!
...new version 0.98 stays non-responsive for a few minutes when I try to quit SmathStudio.
I think it is because of some plug-in you have installed on your system. Try to close SMath Studio, then rename SMath folder to SMath_temp in %APPDATA%, then start SMath Studio again and try to close it to see how much time closing will take.
The error message is "s - not defined". It's bothering me, because of I've used the functions in several documents.
It is because of the following string (in two places):
Starting from SMath Studio 0.98 application handles calculation parts from left to right when no other rules to follow. And it became a rule now which will remain the same in future. So you just need to change places for 1-st and 3-rd operations in your matrix:
Sorry for this, but before 0.98 order of operations in such cases was not actually strictly defined.
You seem to cheat using one-liners that depend on inner order of evaluation. It's not fixed, may change in any new version, so it's unsafe to do that.
Correction: it was unsafe. Now it is absolutely legal way to do such operations. A bit tricky, but legal.
1. Currently, boolean operands are always evaluated regardless if it's already possible to deduce final result. E.g.: (x:=1)V(y:=5) will assign both x and y, despite it's enough to only calc left (or right) part to know the boolean result. Could you please confirm or refute that this will always be so (may I rely on this to create simple (not order-dependent) one-liners?).
Very good question! For some reason (ah, my stupid head) never thought about it. But later better then never... I just did corrections to boolean AND and OR and the final results you can see on the screenshot:
2. Currently, boolean operands are evaluated from left to right. E.g.: (x:=1)V(eval(y:=x)) will make y to be 1, while (eval(y:=x))V(x:=1) will give an "Undefined" error. Could you please confirm or refute that this will always be so (may I rely on this to create complex (order-dependent) one-liners?).
I think, answer is in the screenshot above.
P.S.: I do realize that these changes may result in errors in some existing calculations, but we need to accept these new rules in order to be sure such issues will never appear again in future + rules of a game are now defined.
Best regards!
5 пользователям понравился этот пост
frapuano 16.03.2016 15:57:00, Mike Kaganski 16.03.2016 19:18:00, Igor Skarine 16.03.2016 19:26:00, уни 16.03.2016 14:19:00, Davide Carpi 16.03.2016 14:30:00
#9 Опубликовано: 18.03.2016 11:34:40
Hi Andrey,
I recently found that my old worksheets that used Jacobian (some non-linear solvers) do not work properly.
To fix the issue I have to add maple(optimize(EXP)) around EXP instead of just EXP.
The good example is old UNI's Draghilev method demo sheet.
Best regards
I recently found that my old worksheets that used Jacobian (some non-linear solvers) do not work properly.
To fix the issue I have to add maple(optimize(EXP)) around EXP instead of just EXP.
The good example is old UNI's Draghilev method demo sheet.
Best regards
#10 Опубликовано: 18.03.2016 14:15:26
Tom,
You may want to try the more general Genfit.
It is independent of Maple. In many cases,
it works better than Mathcad 11, but more
difficult to manipulate ... price to pay.
Visit "Samples" => Genfit ... + examples.
Jean
Genfit Pharmacokinetics.sm
You may want to try the more general Genfit.
It is independent of Maple. In many cases,
it works better than Mathcad 11, but more
difficult to manipulate ... price to pay.
Visit "Samples" => Genfit ... + examples.
Jean
Genfit Pharmacokinetics.sm
#11 Опубликовано: 18.03.2016 17:09:33
... quick construct
-
Новые сообщения
-
Нет новых сообщений