On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:55:01PM +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > >The problem I actually wanted to solve was: > >solve((250/x)^x-6000000000,1.e-5) > Sorry to say, but that is not a good problem description.
I suppose I could have been more precise. I just expected the context to make up for my lack of detail. I wanted to solve (250/x)^x=6000000000 to to a precision of 10^-5. In my other example I managed to do that by giving solve an expression for which it found the values of x where the expression evaluated to zero. I - naïvely - thought a similar approach would be sensible. > Try to formulate the problem without the "solve" function and specify > clearly what solutions you accept. For example, there is no solution > to > > (250/x)^x = 6000000000 > > if you require x to be a natural number. I was looking for an approximation with a set precision. > You probably don't want that, but your problem description is too > vague. If you leave the computer to guess something for you then you > should prepare that a possible "answer" is not that what you expect. > PS: Maple 9.5 says > > fsolve((250/x)^x-6000000000); > 226.3269985 > > If that is of any help. Thanks, but I actually already found the answer using Maple. Maple's version of solve gave me two solutions, each using LambertW. One evaluated to ~226 and the other ~6. I am merely trying to get the hang of Axiom in order to ditch Maple and this seemed like a simple starting point. -- Cheers, Søren Hansen.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Axiom-math mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-math
