Provide better alternative. #3144
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While I didn't see a strict need to change anything in view of the low frequency of the zero crossing sine, I don't see a problem with using change(revolutions) either.
My only request for change is that we then also remove the last remaining trace of the sine zero crossing.
White space Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <henrikt@wolfram.com>
Remove note about old. Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <henrikt@wolfram.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't really have anything to object to, but I note that all of this came out of an interesting discussion about high frequency zero crossing functions, and the proposed change is only sweeping that under the rug. On the other hand, as the topic is a difficult numerical issue, I don't want to insist on trying to find the right formulations to put in the specification either.
That is now done. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My only request for change is that we then also remove the last remaining trace of the sine zero crossing.
That is now done.
Yes, I noted, and that's why I only have a comment regarding the potential loss of the interesting discussion about problems with high frequency signals in zero crossings. As long as there's some sort of agreement that we don't want to add anything regarding that, I'm fine with the current state.
Either we don't add anything - or we add it more generally for crossing functions. |
Closes #3143
Having examples that we know lead to numerical issues isn't a good idea, especially as there's an equivalent formulation without the problems - and we know that many just copy the examples from the specification as a starting point.