12-Amethyst

Solved

Smbolic calculation with one (or more) variables unresolved?

Forum|Forum|9 years ago
December 13, 2016
4 replies
4580 views

Hi everyone,

I do not often use symbolic calculation, and I have already tried the keyword "explicit" but I don't seem to get it right.

How can I obtain a symbolic result without the numerical substitution of a variable?

I have attached a practical example (a stripped version of a worksheet where I am trying to use the Rayleigh Distribution to compute the fatigue cumulative usage factors caused by a random narrow-band Gaussian vibration on a part, given the rms stress and the number of cycles).

But the question is general. Mathcad substitutes the values of the variables he knows. Sometimes it is not desirable. How do I reach this?

Thanks for every hint

Best regards

Claudio

1_Partial-Symbolic-Calculation-xmcd.zip

Other

Best answer by MJG

How about this?

V

ValeryOchkov

24-Ruby IV

One try

C

ClaudioPedrazzi

Author

12-Amethyst

Thanks Valery,

but the 100000 is exactly what I would like not to see.

F

Fred_Kohlhepp

23-Emerald I

Mathcad symbolics will not substitute for n unassigned variable:

Write the function definitions without assigning the variable values, ignore the red circle protests of the numeric processor. If the variable is assigned, you get numbers:

C

ClaudioPedrazzi

Author

12-Amethyst

Hi Fred,

thanks, that seems to work but ...

In my case not really pretty. And I do wish to have my variables defined in my worksheet. Well, this could be solved just using different names.

Look what happens with your proposed solution (I just deactivated the definitions).

Possibly I am asking too much. For the human behind the screen it would be better if the magenta crossed parts just disappeared. The first integral results in 1, and the second in nrms.

I was hoping in some kind of keywords telling Mathcad "please consider the following as parameters: nrms, sigma0, and so on.

M

MJG

1-Visitor

The portion you X-ed out in magenta is only 0 if sigma.rms is less than infinity. See my post below.

M

MJG

Answer

1-Visitor

How about this?

M

MJG

1-Visitor

Also, in case you're not aware, you can "hide keywords" to get this:

C

ClaudioPedrazzi

Author

12-Amethyst

yes I wasn't aware ... thanks again.

L

LucMeekes

23-Emerald IV

You don't even need the assume keyword. The magic (if any) is in making sure the symbolic processor does not know the value of certain variables.

I think that you should just judisiously undefine variables, using the construct:

And you should be able to re/abuse sigma.rms instead of sigma.0.

Then you might get (my additions are in red):

Luc

L

LucMeekes

23-Emerald IV

Correction,

For the first problem, you can do without sigma.0 and without sigma.rms, but then you need to make sure the symbolic processor understands that sigma is not dominant (so it is less than infinite)