any news on J becoming CAS?

[DIETER ENSSLEN]

computer algebra system

handling pi and e and such symbolically

or news on J going 64 bit on mac?

thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

[Don Guinn-3]

Look at constants in J help.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:07 PM, DIETER ENSSLEN <ultrarunner@...> wrote:

> computer algebra system
>
> handling pi and e and such symbolically
>
> or news on J going 64 bit on mac?
>
> thanks
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

[DIETER ENSSLEN]

the proof of the pudding is e^(pi*i)    +1

and such

thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

[Joey K Tuttle]

So, did you try

    x:^o.0j1

On Nov 1, 2009, at 20:37, DIETER ENSSLEN <ultrarunner@...> wrote:

> the proof of the pudding is e^(pi*i)    +1
>
> and such
>
> thanks
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

[DIETER ENSSLEN]

Joey,

1+x:^o.0j1  does indeed produce  a 0 
 
as opposed to 1+ 1x1^(1p1*0j1)  which produces   0j1.22465e_16   which is a 'practical' zero but not a say 1.1e_330 type of zero

and both I trust represents e^(pi* i)  +1  =  0

I would guess there are many other situations where 0, pi, and e and such do not happen as neatly as in your example. In a CAS the answer to the above is 0 no matter how you write it.

thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

[Raul Miller-4]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, DIETER ENSSLEN <ultrarunner@...> wrote:
> 1+x:^o.0j1  does indeed produce  a 0
>
> as opposed to 1+ 1x1^(1p1*0j1)  which produces   0j1.22465e_16   which is a 'practical' zero but not a say 1.1e_330 type of zero
>
> and both I trust represents e^(pi* i)  +1  =  0
>
> I would guess there are many other situations where 0, pi, and e and such do not happen as neatly as in your example. In a CAS the answer to the above is 0 no matter how you write it.

Then, 1+ 1x1^(1p1*0j1) would not an example of a subset of J which is a CAS.

--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

[Sherlock, Ric]

> From: DIETER ENSSLEN
> 1+x:^o.0j1  does indeed produce  a 0
>
> as opposed to 1+ 1x1^(1p1*0j1)  which produces   0j1.22465e_16   which
> is a 'practical' zero but not a say 1.1e_330 type of zero
>
> and both I trust represents e^(pi* i)  +1  =  0
>

I don't think anybody will argue that J is a computer algebra system but:

   1 + x: 1x1^1p1 * 0j1
0

Or:
   e_exp=: x:@^
   1 + e_exp 1p1 * 0j1
0

I suggest that you first enjoy J for what it can do before you try to make it something it isn't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

[R.E. Boss]

>
> I suggest that you first enjoy J for what it can do before you try to make
> it something it isn't.
>

Could not agree more.


R.E. Boss

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm