[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rational numbers only
From: 
Paul Kienzle 
Subject: 
Re: rational numbers only 
Date: 
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:48:27 0500 
On Jan 5, 2006, at 4:46 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 5Jan2006, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 1/5/06, Jorge Barros de Abreu <address@hidden> wrote:
 > Hi.
 >
 > ?????Which the variable name that force maxima to work with
ratonal numbers
 > only???

 Octave really isn't built for that kind of operations. There are
 functions that do it as other people in this thread have mentioned,
 but if you want a symbolic calculator, you're better off using a
 dedicated CAS like Maxima or YACAS.
You could also write a new userdefined data type for rational
numbers. Simple arithmetic for scalars and maybe even matrices would
not be too hard. But unless there are existing libraries for other
operations, it would be a lot of work to get something like svd of a
rational matrix working (if that would even make sense).
tnt+jama provide template based SVD, QR, LU, EIG and CHOL.
I had to do some mods to make it accept 100 digit floats, but these
should also work for a rational type. Anyone who wants to work on this
(e.g., for vpa support) should let me know and I can send the patches.
 Paul

Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Octave's home on the web: http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects: http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information: http://www.octave.org/archive.html

 Re: rational numbers only, David Bateman, 2006/01/05
 rational numbers only, Jorge Barros de Abreu, 2006/01/05
 Re: rational numbers only, Geraint Paul Bevan, 2006/01/05
 Re: rational numbers only, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso, 2006/01/05
 Re: rational numbers only, Jorge Barros de Abreu, 2006/01/05
 Re: rational numbers only, John W. Eaton, 2006/01/05
 Re: rational numbers only, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso, 2006/01/05
 Re: rational numbers only, John W. Eaton, 2006/01/05
 Re: rational numbers only, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso, 2006/01/05
 Re: rational numbers only,
Paul Kienzle <=