Skip to main content

1 reply

25-Diamond I
May 14, 2023

You can't numerically evaluate a function definition, so you must delete the equal sign after the definition of function f.

But there are a couple of other errors, too.

You define r as a function of t and so whenever you use r later, you have to type r(t) and not just r. Same applies to function theta(k).

Therefore your function s(theta) must be a function s(k,t) because its definition uses r(t) and theta(k) and whenever you use  s later you have to type s(k,t).

At the end you would have a function f dependent on t, M and and so far undefined value k.

I changed the definitions accordingly but am pretty sure that the result is not what you intended

Werner_E_1-1684066321423.png

 

BTW, you probably know that the imaginary unit is already predefined in Prime. You can type 1i or 1j (without a space or multiplication dot inbetween. For results you have the option to display it either with i or with j (or in polar representation). unfortunately unlike real Mathcad, Prime does not hide the the leading 1 and so the display is rather ugly and unusual which probably is the reason you (re)defined i. You may consider to label it as constant so it looks a bit different from a normal variable.

 

 

gatlas11-GarnetAuthor
11-Garnet
May 14, 2023

Werner,

 

It's not computing the correct answer. It's supposed to numerically invert a Laplace transform. 

 

I've attached the original paper. 

 

If you have a minute, have a look.

 

Thanks,

Glen

25-Diamond I
May 14, 2023

Yes, thought it would not be the result you expected.

I just fixed the syntax, the Mathcad errors concerning your usage of functions, etc., but not the semantics.

Sorry, don't have the time to dive in the pdf you posted.