>>>>> "Jaime" == Jaime Villate <villate at fe.up.pt> writes:
Jaime> On 12/10/2012 04:51 AM, Raymond Toy wrote:
Jaime> But still, unless the original coefficients are truly exact values, I
Jaime> don't see the point of computing the integral to 300+ digits. Seems
Jaime> like it would be just random noise.
Jaime> Also, I think a little bit of analysis as done here goes a long way to
Jaime> simplify the problem. You now have some insight into what the function
Jaime> looks like for various limits of integration.
Jaime> Very interesting analysis. Thanks Ray.
No problem. Kind of fun to put that code to some practical use,
especially since it seems to have produced the correct answer. :-)
Jaime> From what the user told us in another message it seems that
Jaime> those three parameters are some sort of cosmological
Jaime> constants so those quoted values must definitely have
Jaime> uncertainties; with your result he can now explore the
Jaime> differences as he changes parameters. For instance, the
Jaime> last parameter, .728, might actually be in the interval
Jaime> from .727 to .729. By the way, what's the meaning of that
Jaime> third term? (0*(1+x)^2) ? Could it be a typo in the
Jaime> original message?
I just copied the original, but as explained, it just another constant
that happens to be 0 for this example.
While a non-zero value will certainly change the final answer, the
basic work remains the same since the integrand is still the square
root of a quartic.
Ray