Timeline for How to put constraints on NDSolve[] solution
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:55 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 21:49 | comment | added | Shellp | @Albert Retey: I would be thankful if you could help me with this problem and tell me how to apply the constraints and consider them in the formulation. | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 18:56 | answer | added | Acus | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 15:09 | comment | added | Albert Retey | I absolutely aggree with the first sentence of user18792: you should reformulate the problem. If you just ad hoc enforce a constraint with a programming trick the solution will violate physical laws (energy conservation, momentum conservation,...) in an arbitrary and basically uncontrolled way... | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 14:30 | comment | added | Shellp | @user18792: Could you please elaborate it more?! How is it possible to redefine and add a function that always return 180 for higher values?! | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 10:53 | comment | added | Acus | You have to put constraint not in NDSolve, but on formulation of the problem, i.e. equations, itself. If your do not want to deals with physics here, one idea is to redefine angle function that it always return 180, for higher values. | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 10:49 | history | asked | Shellp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |