Greetings!

For what it is worth, here is my attempt at the problem at hand:


These equations only require the use of Davide's "Custom Functions"; you can download the sheet here:


In order for this to work:

• Customized units: the symbolic results are not true units; else there were issues with simplifying to base units
  
• Abuse of unique 'units' properties: Units will cheat numbers tighter together, and will not use the multiplication symbol: giving a cleaner look. However, they will display as blue...
  
• Reliance on Strings: Without passing certain units/variables through as a string, I would have no control to reference the numbers/units/variables at hand. SMath likes to simplify to base units, and substitute variables for contents. This creates a hassle for input, but once configured: should be hassle free.
  
• Assumption that nobody really uses Absolute Variables (the ~ Bold Black Variables): I use these variables as alias: being assumed undefined, I can work with them as math, and then just substitute the actual variable at the proper time (use of ｢~a｣ to be replaced with ｢a｣ as/if desired. This could have been accomplished through a 'string', but the benefit of working with math objects was too great to ignore.
  
• Grouping Hack: At the end of the day, Symbolic will attempt to group terms together and report numbers as fractions. Thus, I utilize the "function" feature, thus having math in an undefined function that cannot evaluate: thus remains ungrouped in what appears to be parenthesis. I use a "UNIT of NONBRACKING-SPACE CHARACTER as the UNDEFINED function name (ie., '\FEFF\() )
  
• Heavy use of special Unicode characters: Terms like "=" and ":" have special meaning that cannot be avoided. My only recourse was to use characters that look like "=" in order to produce aesthetically appealing results (e.g.,"꞊꞊"; "꞉"; "⚌" ). It is through the trick of a period like character that the numbers can appear to be a decimal within the Symbolic Evaluation environment.

I will admit, this will not be perfect as error handling is lacking, you will notice some multiplication symbols bleed through (as the 'result' is just a GIANT multiplication statement of variables, Functions, units, and numbers). The absolute variables must be undefined to work as expected, and some terms like lele() will unravel to its core SMath definition (e.g., lele(~1,~2,~3) =-> (~2≤~1)&(~1≤~3) ). I will also note that it does not like multiple units (like 'ft*'in); it really can only handle (1) unit: thus you may need to create a custom unit to serve the desired effect.


May this be of Good Help;
⚜ Kenny Lemens, P.E. ᵂᴵ

Well, this is definitely a unique approach, thanks for the input.

Hi Great approach.

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Hi. Yes, it's a very good idea. This is a way about how to implement that.





EvalSF.sm (186kb) downloaded 22 time(s).

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Edited by user 06 June 2024 17:08:48(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Hi. Yes. You can delete the undesirable elements at the end of the function:



Editing:



Result:



Best regards.
Alvaro.

Hi. Yes, but it's not trivial replacing ≈ by SMath equals ≡ because it returns zero after evaluation. This is a workaround.

EvalSF with arrow.sm (189kb) downloaded 8 time(s).





Best regards.
Alvaro.