bug in matrix function involving a double loop

bug in matrix function involving a double loop - Mensajes

#1 Publicado: 29/3/2022 12:52:52
Laurent Fournier

Laurent Fournier

9 me gusta en 66 mensajes.

Grupo: User

Hello, there is a simple turnaround so it's not a big deal, but still... This looks like a bug...
Or is there something I didn't understand?
I like to see the numbers in my engineering calculations, that why I use matrices.
Thanks everyone for your help/advice,
Thank you Andrey for this incredible software.
Regards
Laurent

Archivo no encontrado.Archivo no encontrado.
#2 Publicado: 29/3/2022 15:10:10
sergio

sergio

127 me gusta en 342 mensajes.

Grupo: User

It's not really a bug but a smath behavior. If you add an "eval" that forces the numerical evaluation of the nested producer, it works
bug(s).sm (6,48 KiB) descargado 1611 vez(es).
sergio
A 1 usuarios les gustó este mensaje
Alvaro 30/3/2022 14:23:00
#3 Publicado: 29/3/2022 16:00:13
Martin Kraska

Martin Kraska

1.361 me gusta en 2.275 mensajes.

Grupo: Moderator

I'd still call it a bug. Is there any good reason why definition and display in separate cells behave differently from definition and display in the same cell?

There is no problem with def and display in different cells with the original definition (without eval). You also can use M:eval(sumofproduct(Ma))=

One would expect that the combination a:b=c would store b in a and then display a just as it would be displayed with a= in a subsequent cell.

Obviously this is not the case, either because
- there is a good reason from usage point of view (which I don't know) or
- there is a good reason from development point of view (e.g. too complicated to do it this way) or
- it is just a bug.

The error message "j not defined" is definitely a bug, why would one expect loop variables to require an additional definition.

In case the behaviour is too hard to fix, I would even recommend to remove the feature of display and def in the same cell. I know I was among those who asked for it many years ago but not at the cost of having to weave eval() into the sheet wherever it might help.
Technische Mechanik mit SMath Studio: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-50592-9
A 2 usuarios les gustó este mensaje
sergio 29/3/2022 16:02:00, Alvaro 30/3/2022 14:23:00
#4 Publicado: 29/3/2022 16:24:05
Jean Giraud

Jean Giraud

983 me gusta en 6.866 mensajes.

Grupo: User

Augmented version ... no red SS 6179
If you don't see or have red the 3 blocks,
please let me know for a snippet image.
Cheers ... Jean.

bug 6179.sm (39,3 KiB) descargado 1648 vez(es).
#5 Publicado: 29/3/2022 19:11:50
overlord

overlord

600 me gusta en 1.381 mensajes.

Grupo: Moderator

Wrote

I'd still call it a bug.


Yes, me too.
sum() and product() creates havoc sometimes.
The bug can be iron out with line() also, but why?
Why we need line() or eval() or symbolic/numeric to resolve these kind of issues?
sum() and product() used functions can't solve() or roots() too.

2022-03-30_01-01.png

otherbugs.png
#6 Publicado: 30/3/2022 8:09:09
Jean Giraud

Jean Giraud

983 me gusta en 6.866 mensajes.

Grupo: User

Wrote

no red SS 6179



sumofproduct.PNG

  • Nuevos mensajes
  • Sin mensajes nuevos