Re: gnumeric-list Digest, Vol 59, Issue 20

Right. Well. Evidently I should have just tried to answer your question.
I think the problem is with the objective function, creating a non-binding constraint should not be a problem.
Gnumeric can handle bigger problems than Calc, according to my limited experience. But Gnumeric can be very picky (for example, when setting RHS values).
Glad to know you could find a way.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:00 AM, <gnumeric-list-request gnome org> wrote:
Send gnumeric-list mailing list submissions to
       gnumeric-list gnome org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
       gnumeric-list-request gnome org

You can reach the person managing the list at
       gnumeric-list-owner gnome org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of gnumeric-list digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Solver Question (Jim Martin)


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:28:27 -0600
From: Jim Martin <jim martin utah edu>
Subject: Re: Solver Question
To: "gnumeric-list gnome org" <gnumeric-list gnome org>
Message-ID: <49C8373B 9060202 utah edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Hello Mario:

Yes, the process I describe was certainly overkill for a simple linear
function. I tried that only as a simple example. The context I use it in
in the manuscript I described is considerably more challenging. I use it
to determine coefficients in a 10th order Fourier Series Approximation.
I don't believe that linest would help me much with that.

Since posting this to the gnumeric list, I also posted it to the
OpenOffice Calc forum. There I got a response from someone who directed
me to a nonlinear solver extension. I have loaded that in to Calc and it
works fine.



gnumeric-list-request gnome org wrote:
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:21:02 -0500
> From: Mario Rappi <mrappi gmail com>
> Subject: Re: Solver Question
> To: gnumeric-list gnome org
> Jim,
> I think I was able to reproduce the problem: Solver wants constraints. Even
> tried adding a dummy constrained variable. Obviously the solver engine
> doesn't like that.
> Using Solver for this seems an overkill anyway, why don't you try regression
> functions: =SLOPE(range of y's, range of x's) and =INTERCEPT(range of y's,
> range of x's)
> Good luck,
> Mario

James C. Martin PhD
Associate Professor
The Neuromuscular Function Lab
Department of Exercise and Sport Science
College of Health
The University of Utah
250 S. 1850 E. Room 241
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112-0920
Voice 801-587-7704
Fax 801-585-3992
"The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas." Linus Pauling


gnumeric-list mailing list
gnumeric-list gnome org

End of gnumeric-list Digest, Vol 59, Issue 20

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]