|Re: Gnarly problem, Luiz! [SOLVE on 15C]|
Message #4 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 18 Aug 2005, 4:42 a.m.,
in response to message #3 by Karl Schneider
thank you for your comments. You`re right about the equation, but I did not mean to show such a 'darn' example... I actually did not take much care about the equation behavior, though.
I thought about an example were programming skills would be needed and I wrote the expression solely based on programming. I added 'ABS' and '+1' to avoid forbiden conditions, but I was aware of poles as I used 'x^3' and 'LN'.
After writing and loading the program from the equation, I ran it twice, first with x=1 and then with x=2. As the y values returned with reversed signal, I ran the SOLVE with 1 and 2 as initial estimates. After a few seconds, the 1.1533 was shown in the display.
I was waiting for John's comments and feedback so I'd explain why I used such example. Now I see that I could use a better, more reasonable (and perhaps more generous) one. Anyway, now that you added such detailed analisys, I think my 'not so good' choice served with another purpose, instead.
Thanks, Karl. I myself added some of your considerations to my own after reading your post. I understood and, in fact, am aware of them, I actualy was lazy enough not going ahead as you've gone. My bad...