The Java program calls the solution Reduce the resolution of mathematica and other functions to calculate and get the result.

public static void main(String() args) {
    System.setProperty("com.wolfram.jlink.libdir", "C:\Program Files\Wolfram Research\Mathematica\10.0\SystemFiles\Links\JLink");
    KernelLink ml = null;
    try {
        ml = MathLinkFactory.createKernelLink("-linkmode launch -linkname "
                + "'C:\Program Files\Wolfram Research\Mathematica\10.0\MathKernel.exe'");

}

An error has occurred:
MathLinkException: 3: MLG and out of sequence.

I want to design a page on which I put the fields in the form of no travel, icon of the estimated duration and process. Suggest me an effective solution

I want to design a page on which I put the fields in the form of no travel, icon of the estimated duration and process. Suggest me an effective solution

enter the description of the image here

MLM Software Solution – Cryptocurrency Corner

iSHA Technology Solution Pvt. Ltd. is a best MLM software company in Noida. ISHA technology makes it easy and fast to create your MLM business worldwide. It provides all kind of MLM software, Australian Binary MLM software, Matrix MLM software, MLM gift software, MLM redemption software, MLM Generation software, etc. MLM Software in Noida

.

Boolean algebra – Why does this state of the art transition state diagram solution have more states than my solution?

I can not understand what is wrong with my solution and why does this differ from the book solution? I think the only thing that matters is the previous state of A, so that there should be two states, one for the old A = 0 and one for the old A = 1. Where am I wrong? I would really appreciate any explanation.

This is the question

it's the solution of the book here

it's my solution

mining theory – What is the solution to solve the problems related to other cryptocurrencies?

I want to know how other crypto-currency protocols differ from the Bitcoin protocol in addressing scissions? You know that the split occurs when two miners extract a block of the same height. In the Bitcoin protocol, when a split occurs, the miners accept and exploit the first block they receive earlier. Is it the same for other crypto-currency protocols?

finite automata – i do not understand why there are more states than my solution in the solution of my fsm state transition diagram problem

I can not understand what is wrong with my solution and why does this differ from the book solution? I think the only thing that matters is the previous state of A, so that there should be two states, one for the old A = 0 and one for the old A = 1. Where am I wrong? I would really appreciate any explanation.

Here's the question: https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=502336099674

This is the solution of the book: https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=502336111056

And here is my solution: https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=502336130649

plot – how can I solve the differential equation coupled with time and plot their solution with another variable not with time

w1 = 1;
w2 = 1;
gma1 = 0.1;
g1 = 1;
amp1 = 0.5;
sol = ParametricNDSolve[{q1'
     q2'
    p1'
p2'
q1[0] == 1, q2[0] == 1, p1[0] == 1, p2[0] == 0}, {q1, q2, p1, 
p2}, {t, 0, 50}, {q1, q2}];
Plot[Evaluate[p1

I'm trying to draw between the variables 'p'. and & q; q & # 39; I do not know how that will be possible. If anyone can solve this is welcome.

Equation Resolution – How to find the distances between two adjacent maxima in a solution of NDSolve

I'm trying to find a general approach to trace the temporal evolution of horizontal distances from maximum to maximum in a solution of EDP. The solution u[x,t] normally have several maximum and minimum in the space xwho are moving in space x and evolve over time t.

Here is a simple example in which the maxima and the minima are periodic. But in my real problem, they are not periodic and the distances between different pairs of adjacent max are different at one time. t, the distances between two adjacent max may also change t.

sol = NDSolve[{D[u[x, t], t] + u[x, t] D[u[x, t], x] + D[u[x, t], x, x] + 
0.4*D[u[x, t], {x, 3}] + D[u[x, t], {x, 4}] == 0,
u[-4 [Pi], t] == u[4 [Pi], t], u[x, 0] == 0.1*Sin[x]}, u, {t, 0, 20},
{x, -4 [Pi], 4 [Pi]}]

Plot3D[Evaluate[u[x, t] /. First[sol]], {t, 0, 10}, {x, -4 Pi, 4 Pi}, PlotRange -> All, PlotPoints -> 100]

enter the description of the image here

I tried to use Table[FindMaximum[Evaluate[u[x, t] /. First[sol]], {x, x0}][[2, 1, 2]], {t,0,tend,0.01}] with an initial position x0 to find a local maximum. But I do not know how to simultaneously find two adjacent maxima to trace the temporal evolution of their distance.

Differential equation with special solution ansatz terms identical to homogeneous solution

I therefore have a problem of understanding to find a solution to this equation:
$$ x & # 39; + w ^ 2 x = f sin t $$
with the initial conditions x (0) = 0 and x (0) = 0. I know this explains how to solve this problem:

I had to make the formula substitution euler then multiply it by t. Apparently, this is because the particular ansatz solution for fsintwt has a term identical to that of the homogeneous solution. Where Yp = Cte ^ (iwt). So, presumably, any g (t) ansatz that gives the same terms as the homogeneous solution must be adjusted accordingly? Was there a simpler way to solve this problem than I examined? Please excuse the terminology errors in the above.

And

f ≠ 0. This is the case of resonance, so you have to multiply your ansatz by t. So for the particular solution, you have to try $ x = Atsinωt + Btcosωt $

But I do not understand what they are talking about. What I understand is that the general solution is:
$$ C_1 cos omega t + C_2sin omega t + x_ (private) $$
where to find x (particular) I need to do cost = x, but then i get to f = 0 when i solve the left side of the equation. What am I doing wrong, I do not understand, help me please 🙂 I really appreciate the help, because I have had a good time hours on this problem and thank you very much in advance!

Is this a false solution?

I've tried W.A to find the solution for $ log (-i) $ and the result is $ log (-i) = -i pi / 2 $ . But I calculate "by hand" that $ e ^ {- i pi / 2} = i? $ . This result / solution is it wrong?