thank you,
precision is one thing, but the output gets messy, and the common
assumption that trailing zeros are redundant works fine for me.
I was trying this for a start (but then I stopped in my tracks)
Coef =var('a, b, alpha_A, alpha_B, beta_A, beta_B, k_A, k_B, J, R_A,
R_B')
values ={a: 15,b: 0.006,alpha_A: 3,beta_A:4.8,beta_B:4.8,k_A:0.7,k_B:
0.375}
f1 = beta_A/2 * J^2*(1/(b+beta_A*R_A+beta_B*R_B)^2+6*b/(2*b
+3*beta_A*R_A+3*beta_B*R_B)^3)==2*k_A/R_A^2;
f2 = beta_B/2 * J^2*(1/(b+beta_A*R_A+beta_B*R_B)^2-6*b/(2*b
+3*beta_A*R_A+3*beta_B*R_B)^3)==2*k_B/R_B^2;
show(f1)
show(f2)
f1v=f1.subs(J=a-alpha_A-alpha_B).subs(values)
show(f1v)
On 11 dec, 19:32, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
> marcW wrote:
> > hi,
> > I'm new at this, some experience with mathematica.
> > I spent the better part of 2 days trying to find out why
> > f= a*x
> > g=f.subs({a:0.6}]
> > show(g)
>
> > produces so many zeroes.lol. It's laughable.
> > I've never seen something like this.
> > It shouldn't be complicated to get rid of these zeros right?
>
> It's to show the true precision of the number. 0.6 is a 53-bit
> precision number, so the zeroes indicate that.
>
> Note the difference between a 10-bit precision number and a 100-bit
> precision number:
>
> sage: RealField(100)(0.6)
> 0.60000000000000000000000000000
> sage: RealField(10)(0.6)
> 0.60
>
> Maybe there should be an option to not show the precision using the
> zeroes? In general, I think showing the precision is a good idea.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason Grout
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
