Skip to main content
L
lvl10720-Turquoise
20-Turquoise
October 27, 2018
Solved

solve , x , fully ?

  • October 27, 2018
  • 1 reply
  • 2835 views

  Hello Everyone.

From :

I.PNG

solve , x , fully ?
     Thanks in advance.

            Regards.

 

Best answer by LucMeekes

You have found all zero's. Here's what's going on:

LM_20181028_Solve1.png

LM_20181028_Solve2.png

LM_20181028_Solve3.png

Success!
Luc

1 reply

L
LucMeekes23-Emerald IVAnswer
23-Emerald IV
October 28, 2018

You have found all zero's. Here's what's going on:

LM_20181028_Solve1.png

LM_20181028_Solve2.png

LM_20181028_Solve3.png

Success!
Luc

L
lvl10720-TurquoiseAuthor
20-Turquoise
October 28, 2018

I appreciate your time and help, Luc. Smiley HappySmiley HappySmiley Happy ( It seems MC15 does not show  optimize>>equation. ).The query : "Is there a any way to make more precision for the "yellow".

1.PNG

Best Regards.

W
Werner_E25-Diamond I
25-Diamond I
October 28, 2018
@LucMeekes wrote:

Be aware that you are chasing a ghost. As I demonstrated that that root does not exist for the equation that you give. It's a numerical anomaly.

No, its not. And there even are further roots. The point is the expression e^(i*x) or (e^(i*x))^i which Maple believes to be just e^(-x).

But here muPad knows better (its standard domain is complex, not real) and so it does not "simplify" that expression the way Maple does. One always has to be aware which rules know from real numbers still apply when we deal with complex numbers. In complex numbers we often are confronted with some sort of ambiguity.  Keep in mind that

B.png

 

The problem with the numeric evaluation of the original function is that it will jump from one member of the family of curves to the next which you interpreted as numerical anomaly.

 

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement