HP Forums

Full Version: Issues with the SLV command in WP34s
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

I've tested now the new error message "Solve failed" for the SLV command and in principle it is working. But in my tests I saw that SLV is still working unreliable.

I've used the simple function x^2-3 and found that the solver has big problems when the 2 initial guesses are equal - and this may happen quite quickly when the user presses the ENTER key after his 2nd guess and before calling SLV.

Ok, I know that this is in fact an user error, but who has really never done this before: entering 2 start values? - well, 0 ENTER 1 ENTER - and now call the solver? - ok, [f]SLV.

But now of course X=1 and Y=1 and SLV is called with 2 equal guesses - and it fails! Unfortunately not with the new error message "Solve failed" but with completely wrong 'results' in X and Y, and a function value in Z which is far away from 0 (what it should be) - but for THIS problem a bit later.

For the above mentioned function x^2-3 this happens for all initial guesses from -1.7 to +1.7 whenever both guesses are the same.

So I would say that the SLV routine should definitely make sure that it is NOT called with 2 equal inital guesses - either it should give any error message in this case, or the 2nd guess should automatically be changed a bit. One possible solution might be the following short code at the begin of the SLV routine:


INC X (or any other change of X)

This might of course lead to another problem when the changed X-value is not within the definition interval of the function, but this would certainly happen not very often and would definitely be better than a wrong result.

And now to the other problem mentioned before: also if (because of such 2 equal start values) the solver fails, it should of course not give wrong results but display the new implemented error message - but it doesn't do it (at least not for the above function and all values -1.7...+1.7.

So there must still be something not ok in the SLV routine; it should in fact NEVER provide a 'solution' (which is none) whenever the function value in Z is not (at least nearly) zero - not even if the last 2 calculated argument values (which are in X and Y) are very close to each other.

You see, this SLV routine needs indeed some further improvements ...


Should be fixed now.

- Pauli