Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**pavleas****Member**- Registered: 2013-01-10
- Posts: 2

Trigonometrical equation System. Numerical analysis! pls HELP!!

Can you please help me solve this system with, Jacobi method?!

**R*f-R*sin(f)=5R-R*cos(f)=3**

I dont know how to use the Jacobi method, in cases other than polunomial systems!

It can't be that hard, but i dont know what to do!!

pls help!

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 92,395

Hi pavleas;

Welcome to the forum. Newton - Jacobi? There are many methods in numerical analysis that have his name. Can you be a little more specific?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

**I agree with you regarding the satisfaction and importance of actually computing some numbers. I can't tell you how often I see time and money wasted because someone didn't bother to run the numbers.**

**Online**

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,740

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 92,395

Hi Bob;

Jacobi again! That guy must have been wiser than an owl. That one is for solving simultaneous sets of equations. There is also another one for producing the eigenvalues. The one I think he wants requires a special setup of the equations and hopefully iterates to a solution.

Wanted to say nice work with the approximate integration in the other thread. That should have been decisive unless someone says that putting boxes under curves is a delusion of calculus.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

**I agree with you regarding the satisfaction and importance of actually computing some numbers. I can't tell you how often I see time and money wasted because someone didn't bother to run the numbers.**

**Online**

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,740

hi bobbym,

Thank you for the integration comment. Someone already has. I'm about ready to throw in the towel. Nobody could say I didn't give this new idea a fair hearing. Like Alice I'm OK for 6 impossible things before breakfast, but the 7th has just arrived.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**pavleas****Member**- Registered: 2013-01-10
- Posts: 2

Hey guys!

First of all thanks everyone so much for your attention.

The method i have to use is indeed the one BOB linked to (the one at WIKIPEDIA - i am not allowed to post links!).

So, I can use it for a system of linears, with ease, but i have no idea how to apply it on a system like the one i presented!!

Maybe some trick is required!?

I would be so gratefull, if someone has a hint!

Thanks everyone,

this forum seems so nice!

p.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 92,395

Hi;

That method is for a system of linear equations. Unless you can turn that set into a bunch of linear equations ( this is sometime s possible ) then you will have to you use another method.

For a set like that you can use Newton's method for simultaneous equations. If you take and apply Newton's and slap it all together inside a matrix they call that Newton - Jacobi, and that is what I was talking about in post#2.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

**I agree with you regarding the satisfaction and importance of actually computing some numbers. I can't tell you how often I see time and money wasted because someone didn't bother to run the numbers.**

**Online**