Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

Showing results for

We are working to address an issue with subscription email notifications. In the meantime, be sure to check your favorite boards for new topics.

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page

Apr 17, 2012
02:36 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
02:36 AM

integration weirdness

Dear all,

Please help me resolve these confusing usage issues.

I'm using Mathcad 15.0 (15.0.0.436 [006041742]).

I've additionally attached my working as a Mathcad worksheet. Thanks.

Solved! Go to Solution.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Apr 17, 2012
09:42 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
09:42 AM

think you should not use the variable of integration as a boundery.

Mathcad simply can not integrate that int sybolically.

Obviously it creates nonsense when variable and boundery are the same.

15 REPLIES 15

Apr 17, 2012
03:47 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
03:47 AM

Mupad(the Mathcad symbolic engine) is not infallible and has problems with difficult integrals (and some simple ones!). I'm using exactly the same version of M15 as you, but your worksheet gives slightly different results for me, as can be seen below:

Alan

Apr 17, 2012
07:22 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
07:22 AM

Hi Alan, thanks for your reply.

Okay, I just reopened the worksheet on the same system, and weirdly, my Mathcad is now giving the exact same values as yours (i.e. it is no longer giving the values I originally got earlier on!).

I.e. our copies of Mathcad (including Vladimir's copy of Prime 2.0) all give the same errors.

Please refer to the updated worksheet below (specifically the last question, where I have re-angled the problem):

Thanks!

Apr 17, 2012
04:53 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
04:53 AM

Ryan Goh wrote:

...

I'm using Mathcad 15.0 (15.0.0.436 [006041742])..

This is a **F000** service release of Mathcad 15. And I have the same result as shown by Alan (use Mathcad 15 M010).

Apr 17, 2012
07:02 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
07:02 AM

Hi, I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with release history-- what does (F000) service release mean? And how do I upgrade to the version 15 M010 that you mention (without having to pay)?

Thanks.

Apr 17, 2012
07:48 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
07:48 AM

1. Datecodes starting with an "**F**" designate the first release of a product. Datecodes starting with an "**M**" denote a maintenance release. Mathcad 15 **M010** - the latest service release at this time.

2. To upgrade, you must have paid for a maintenance .

Apr 17, 2012
05:00 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
05:00 AM

Answer in Mathcad Prime **2.0**:

Apr 17, 2012
09:42 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
09:42 AM

think you should not use the variable of integration as a boundery.

Mathcad simply can not integrate that int sybolically.

Obviously it creates nonsense when variable and boundery are the same.

Apr 17, 2012
11:21 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
11:21 AM

winfrod rager wrote:

think you should not use the variable of integration as a boundery.

I agree, but that's not the cause of the problem here - the same problems occur even if you use a different symbol for the upper bound.

The integral is just too difficult for Mupad. Maple gives the following, where Si is the sine integral and Ci is the cosine integral:

Alan

Apr 17, 2012
11:55 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
11:55 AM

I am logging these issues to be investigated for a future release of Mathcad.

Mona

Apr 17, 2012
01:46 PM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
01:46 PM

No problem in Mathcad 11:

Viktor

Apr 17, 2012
03:25 PM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
03:25 PM

This is pure madness! LOL

Apr 17, 2012
03:13 PM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
03:13 PM

Hi Alan, I think Winfrod Rager is right though. If you look at all the examples in our worksheets thus far, Mathcad makes the integration mistake that I highlighted only when the dummy variable of integration is also used as one of the boundaries of integration (whether the dummy variable is x or y or whatever).

Apr 17, 2012
03:20 PM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
03:20 PM

Ryan Goh wrote:

Yes, it gives the wrong answer when the boundary variable is the same as the dummy variable. It gives a true but useless answer when the boundary variable is different; but it *neve*r gives a true and useful answer!

Alan

Apr 17, 2012
03:34 PM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
03:34 PM

Yes, but Mathcad returning a false answer is more dangerous (when one is not being careful) than it returning a useless (albeit true) answer.

It's not true that Mathcad *never* returns a true and useful answer to this particular integration problem though: the third expression (where the lower and upper limits are set to 0 and 0.8 respectively) is correctly numerically-evaluated as 0.23548... Although oddly enough, when the limits are changed to 0 and 5 (the second expression in the worksheet), Mathcad once again fails. (I have just arbitrarily chosen these particular choice of boundary values.)

Apr 17, 2012
03:37 PM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

Apr 17, 2012
03:37 PM

Ryan Goh wrote:

Dear Mona, I also note that even though Mathcad is unable to *numerically* evaluate the integral when the lower and upper limits are set to 0 and 5 respectively, it suceeds when the limits are set to to 0 and 0.8, correcting returning the answer 0.23548... (I have no particular reason for these particular choice of boundary values.)

That's because it tries to find an exact solution with exact integer values everywhere (and we already know it is unable to do that!). Stick a decimal point in somewhere and it'll produce a numerical result.

Alan