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

You are not logged in. #376 20130331 13:12:20
Re: PSLQ and LLL?Okay, I am sorry if I gave you that impression. I have been reading everything you said and have not intentionally put anything other than what I think in my replies. My apology if I seemed argumentative, I was not trying to be. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #377 20130331 13:15:32
Re: PSLQ and LLL?No, no. There is really no need to apologize. Maybe tomorrow, when I log on with the laptop, I will have a better chance of explaining what I want. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #378 20130331 13:28:04
Re: PSLQ and LLL?Not stubborn, passionate about numerical methods. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #379 20130331 13:29:16
Re: PSLQ and LLL?Well, I did not attack it as a numerical method. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #380 20130401 09:17:40
Re: PSLQ and LLL?Hmmm, it is tomorrow and I do not see ole anonimnystefy here. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #381 20130401 09:30:42
Re: PSLQ and LLL?You have not been here whole day while I was on the laptop. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #382 20130401 09:32:34
Re: PSLQ and LLL?That is you must admit a strange distinction about why one is and why another one is not. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #383 20130401 09:36:47
Re: PSLQ and LLL?It is not strange. Look at it this way: contour integration is a method for solving integrals, but solely finding the residues isn't. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #384 20130401 09:41:53
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Numerical integration is a method for solving integrals but using the PSLQ isn't. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #385 20130401 09:58:21
Re: PSLQ and LLL?There you go! The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #386 20130401 10:01:12
Re: PSLQ and LLL?But using both is a powerful method to solve definite integrals. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #387 20130401 10:03:10
Re: PSLQ and LLL?That is true. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #388 20130401 10:06:34
Re: PSLQ and LLL?So did you do one with your PSLQ? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #389 20130401 10:10:05
Re: PSLQ and LLL?I haven't yet. I explored the world of Mathematica. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #390 20130401 10:11:15#391 20130401 10:20:21
Re: PSLQ and LLL?Well, I searched for different things. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #392 20130401 10:24:26
Re: PSLQ and LLL?A random walk can be done in M extremely easily. You use the accumulate function. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #393 20130401 10:26:11
Re: PSLQ and LLL?I think he used NestList. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #394 20130401 10:27:45
Re: PSLQ and LLL?M has a 1000 ways to do everything and that is its greatest strength and its biggest weakness. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #395 20130401 10:33:57
Re: PSLQ and LLL?Why is it a weakness? The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #396 20130401 10:41:41
Re: PSLQ and LLL?The learning curve is not very steep for ordinary humans like myself. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #397 20130401 10:47:09
Re: PSLQ and LLL?Hm. I'm not sure if that is a weakness on M's side or the user side. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #398 20130401 11:03:29
Re: PSLQ and LLL?Yes, and it is not getting Agnishom's answer for c) so I would like to check it again before showing it. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #399 20130401 11:11:22
Re: PSLQ and LLL?Why not post it anyway? If there is an error somewhere, there are better chances of spotting it. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #400 20130401 11:17:05
Re: PSLQ and LLL?When 2 answers do not agree that worries me a lot. Just a wee bit more tabasco! In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 