Well, everything is implementation dependent :-).
My assumption is that this would only be used in those cases where the
assignment rule cycle reaches a fix point. Obviously, if it does not
reach a fix point in a given time point, then it would cause the
simulator to get stuck. In essence, you are defeating the check for
cycles by going through an event. Therefore, buyer beware.
Assuming that "x" and "xmax" are constant at a given time point, I
don't see why this would not work for this case.
On May 18, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Sven Sahle wrote:
> Hi Chris, Hi Michael,
> Am 18.05.2011 um 17:31 schrieb Chris J. Myers:
>> nextXmax := piecewise(x,gt(x,xmax),xmax)
>> Trigger: neq(xmax,nextXmax)
>> Trigger initially true: false
>> Assignment: xmax:=nextXmax
>> I tried this, and it seems to work.
> This is a clever idea, but wouldn't this mean the event is triggered
> continuously if x is growing? This would mean that we would have to
> trigger an infinite number of events and it is completely
> implementation dependent how a solver would react to that.
> Dr. Sven Sahle
> Abteilung Modellierung biologischer Prozesse
> Universitšt Heidelberg, BIOQUANT/Zoologie
> To manage your sbml-discuss list subscription, visit
> For a web interface to the sbml-discuss mailing list, visit
> For questions or feedback about the sbml-discuss list,
> contact email@example.com
To manage your sbml-discuss list subscription, visit
For a web interface to the sbml-discuss mailing list, visit
For questions or feedback about the sbml-discuss list,