Skip to main content
Werner_E
25-Diamond I
Jul 16, 2014 1:03 AM UTC
Solved

Bug with symbolic solve?

Has anybody an explanation why the symbolic solve produces that many wrong solution if used without the modifer "fully"?

May we call it a bug? Are there other examples?

16.07.png

19-Tanzanite
Jul 16, 2014 7:26 AM UTC

I think it's clear enough where the extra solutions come from; Mathcad must do something like the following on solving the equation.

oddsolns.PNG

Alan

7 replies

19-Tanzanite
Jul 16, 2014 1:30 AM UTC

May we call it a bug?

. Is there something else we might call it?

Has anybody an explanation why the symbolic solve produces that many wrong solution if used without the modifer "fully"?

Because there's a bug

Translate
Werner_E
Werner_E25-Diamond IAuthor
25-Diamond I
Jul 16, 2014 12:28 PM UTC

Richard Jackson wrote:

May we call it a bug?

. Is there something else we might call it?

Hmm, its PTC - maybe its a feature!? PTC marketing sure can make that possible.

Has anybody an explanation why the symbolic solve produces that many wrong solution if used without the modifer "fully"?

Because there's a bug

Yes, and obviously "fully" makes the symbolics to think about its results a second time

Alan's explanation make it clear whats happening - false solutions coming from taking the equation to the power of 4.

Translate
24-Ruby IV
Jul 16, 2014 5:57 AM UTC

and too few solutions:

root.png

Translate
24-Ruby IV
Jul 16, 2014 6:13 AM UTC

I use others tools in some cases:

wolfram.png

Translate
19-Tanzanite
Jul 16, 2014 7:26 AM UTC

I think it's clear enough where the extra solutions come from; Mathcad must do something like the following on solving the equation.

oddsolns.PNG

Alan

Translate
Werner_E
Werner_E25-Diamond IAuthor
25-Diamond I
Jul 16, 2014 12:33 PM UTC

AlanStevens wrote:

I think it's clear enough where the extra solutions come from; Mathcad must do something like the following on solving the equation.

Thank! Yes, at least with your explanation its clear what happens.

Nevertheless a bug which should not happen.

Also intersting the different behaviour when using the fourth root instead.

I know the difference between (-1)^(1/3) and the third root of -1 (only the latter is -1) but not sure about the fourth root and how the symbolics sees it.

Werner

Translate