limit(exp(x*%i)*x,x,inf) => UND NO!
Should be INFINITY
Barton Willis
2003-04-12
Logged In: YES
user_id=570592
Let F : R -> C and F(x) = x exp(i x) = x cos(x) + i x sin(x).
Both the real and imaginary parts of F are oscillatory with
linearly growing amplitudes; neither the real nor the imaginary
parts have a limit towards infinity. I say the limit is UND.
Barton
Stavros Macrakis
2003-04-12
Logged In: YES
user_id=588346
I believe that the definition of limit(f(x))=infinity is that for all N,
there exists an X such that x>X implies abs(f(x))>N.
That is satisfied in this case. In fact, you can choose X=N.
The separate magnitudes of the real and imaginary parts are
irrelevant.
After all, limit(2+x*%i,x,inf) = infinity
Robert Dodier
2006-04-09
Dieter Kaiser
2009-12-21
Dieter Kaiser
2009-12-21
The example of this bug report gives no longer 'und but a noun form (Maxima 5.20post);
(%i11) limit(exp(x*%i)*x,x,inf);
(%o11) 'limit(x*%e^(%i*x),x,inf)
I am not sure what is the right answer. Wolfram alpha gives a result in terms of an interval:
E^((2 I) Interval[{0, Pi}]) Infinity
A noun form is not a wrong result. Perhaps, we can close this bug report at this point. Further improvements of the limit routines might give a more complete answer.
Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me".
Dieter Kaiser
Stavros Macrakis
2009-12-21
Stavros Macrakis
2009-12-21
A noun form is certainly better than und, but the correct result is Infinity. I would have thought that in the Wolfram world, the correct result would be ComplexInfinity (which corresponds to Maxima's Infinity).
Dieter Kaiser
2009-12-21
Dieter Kaiser
2009-12-21
Changing the title to reflect the issue better. Setting the resolution back to "None".
Dieter Kaiser