Is Mathematica Reliable for Complex Calculations?

  • Context: Mathematica 
  • Thread starter Thread starter niko2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematica
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Mathematica is a reliable tool for complex calculations, consistently delivering accurate results when used correctly. Users have reported that while Mathematica excels in handling mathematical computations, discrepancies with manual calculations often stem from user error rather than software faults. The program's handling of complex equations, including ordinary differential equations (ODEs), is generally dependable, although users should ensure they input problems accurately. For simplification issues, commands like FullSimplify and ExpandAll can be utilized to achieve desired results.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Mathematica 12.0 syntax and commands
  • Familiarity with electrical engineering calculations
  • Knowledge of ordinary differential equations (ODEs)
  • Experience with mathematical software comparison, particularly MATLAB
NEXT STEPS
  • Research advanced Mathematica commands for simplification, such as FullSimplify and ExpandAll
  • Explore the differences between Mathematica and MATLAB in handling complex calculations
  • Study the reliability of ODE solvers in Mathematica
  • Practice verifying calculations through both software and manual methods
USEFUL FOR

Electrical engineering students, mathematicians, and professionals using computational algebra systems for complex calculations will benefit from this discussion.

niko2000
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Hi,
Recently I was doing some calculations with Mathematica then I did it on paper and the results weren't the same. I am almost sure I didn't make any mistake. I study electrical engineering and we have to do a lot of calculations. I have used Matlab and Mathematica for calculations with symbols. Until now I haven't done much complex calculations with Mathematica. Does anyone know if Mathematica is 100% reliable for every equation or is it only a tool for simple equations?
Regards,
Niko
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In short, yes, it is correct 100% of the time I would say. If it wasn't there would be no use for it. I use it all the time and it can out-math pretty much anything out there, it is a computer program after all, its job is to do math calculations.
 
I haven't used Mathematica very much but I've never had Maple screw up and I'd wager Mathematica is quite reliable.

There is a disclaimer though, these programs will be able to reliably perform any computation that you tell them to perform. Make sure you're actually telling it to do what you think you're telling it to do. They aren't free of user error.
 
Mathematica, MATLAB, and other CA systems will sometimes disagree when doing really, really intensive tensor-calc problems with lots of ODEs. The ODE solvers are not always perfect, but are, well, virtually always right.

If you're doing some simple EE work, and your pencil-and-paper solution doesn't match Mathematica's solution, it's almost surely your error. Check your pencil-and-paper work, then check to make sure you accurately supplied the problem to Mathematica.

- Warren
 
They wouldn't release it if they knew that it wasn't 100% reliable. Even if it was 99%, I doubt they would.

I think you may have done something wrong when you did it on paper. Double check it.
 
Thank you.
Maybe the result isn't different but it isn't simplified. I am sure I haven't done any error with my calculations.
Something that also seems strange is that Mathematica gave the result in note like this:
Sqrt[a^2...] I have put FullSimplify command but it hasn't changed. Anyone knows why?
 
You might want to use an ExpandAll followed by a FullSimplify.

- Warren
 
It still doesn't work.
I get this result:
Sqrt[a^2*Cosh[x]^2*Sin[y]^2]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
13K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K