You can subscribe to this list here.
2002 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}
(67) 
_{Jul}
(61) 
_{Aug}
(49) 
_{Sep}
(43) 
_{Oct}
(59) 
_{Nov}
(24) 
_{Dec}
(18) 

2003 
_{Jan}
(34) 
_{Feb}
(35) 
_{Mar}
(72) 
_{Apr}
(42) 
_{May}
(46) 
_{Jun}
(15) 
_{Jul}
(64) 
_{Aug}
(62) 
_{Sep}
(22) 
_{Oct}
(41) 
_{Nov}
(57) 
_{Dec}
(56) 
2004 
_{Jan}
(48) 
_{Feb}
(47) 
_{Mar}
(33) 
_{Apr}
(39) 
_{May}
(6) 
_{Jun}
(17) 
_{Jul}
(19) 
_{Aug}
(10) 
_{Sep}
(14) 
_{Oct}
(74) 
_{Nov}
(80) 
_{Dec}
(22) 
2005 
_{Jan}
(43) 
_{Feb}
(33) 
_{Mar}
(52) 
_{Apr}
(74) 
_{May}
(32) 
_{Jun}
(58) 
_{Jul}
(18) 
_{Aug}
(41) 
_{Sep}
(71) 
_{Oct}
(28) 
_{Nov}
(65) 
_{Dec}
(68) 
2006 
_{Jan}
(54) 
_{Feb}
(37) 
_{Mar}
(82) 
_{Apr}
(211) 
_{May}
(69) 
_{Jun}
(75) 
_{Jul}
(279) 
_{Aug}
(139) 
_{Sep}
(135) 
_{Oct}
(58) 
_{Nov}
(81) 
_{Dec}
(78) 
2007 
_{Jan}
(141) 
_{Feb}
(134) 
_{Mar}
(65) 
_{Apr}
(49) 
_{May}
(61) 
_{Jun}
(90) 
_{Jul}
(72) 
_{Aug}
(53) 
_{Sep}
(86) 
_{Oct}
(61) 
_{Nov}
(62) 
_{Dec}
(101) 
2008 
_{Jan}
(100) 
_{Feb}
(66) 
_{Mar}
(76) 
_{Apr}
(95) 
_{May}
(77) 
_{Jun}
(93) 
_{Jul}
(103) 
_{Aug}
(76) 
_{Sep}
(42) 
_{Oct}
(55) 
_{Nov}
(44) 
_{Dec}
(75) 
2009 
_{Jan}
(103) 
_{Feb}
(105) 
_{Mar}
(121) 
_{Apr}
(59) 
_{May}
(103) 
_{Jun}
(82) 
_{Jul}
(67) 
_{Aug}
(76) 
_{Sep}
(85) 
_{Oct}
(75) 
_{Nov}
(181) 
_{Dec}
(133) 
2010 
_{Jan}
(107) 
_{Feb}
(116) 
_{Mar}
(145) 
_{Apr}
(89) 
_{May}
(138) 
_{Jun}
(85) 
_{Jul}
(82) 
_{Aug}
(111) 
_{Sep}
(70) 
_{Oct}
(83) 
_{Nov}
(60) 
_{Dec}
(16) 
2011 
_{Jan}
(61) 
_{Feb}
(16) 
_{Mar}
(52) 
_{Apr}
(41) 
_{May}
(34) 
_{Jun}
(41) 
_{Jul}
(57) 
_{Aug}
(73) 
_{Sep}
(21) 
_{Oct}
(45) 
_{Nov}
(50) 
_{Dec}
(28) 
2012 
_{Jan}
(70) 
_{Feb}
(36) 
_{Mar}
(71) 
_{Apr}
(29) 
_{May}
(48) 
_{Jun}
(61) 
_{Jul}
(44) 
_{Aug}
(54) 
_{Sep}
(20) 
_{Oct}
(28) 
_{Nov}
(41) 
_{Dec}
(137) 
2013 
_{Jan}
(62) 
_{Feb}
(55) 
_{Mar}
(31) 
_{Apr}
(23) 
_{May}
(54) 
_{Jun}
(54) 
_{Jul}
(90) 
_{Aug}
(46) 
_{Sep}
(38) 
_{Oct}
(60) 
_{Nov}
(92) 
_{Dec}
(17) 
2014 
_{Jan}
(62) 
_{Feb}
(35) 
_{Mar}
(72) 
_{Apr}
(30) 
_{May}
(97) 
_{Jun}
(81) 
_{Jul}
(63) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 




1
(8) 
2
(3) 
3

4
(4) 
5

6

7

8
(2) 
9
(3) 
10
(3) 
11

12
(2) 
13
(1) 
14
(1) 
15

16

17
(2) 
18

19

20
(5) 
21

22

23

24

25

26

27
(7) 
28

29

30

31


From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031027 23:47:36

Bugs item #831445, was opened at 20031027 18:44 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831445&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: gcd/subres  another case Initial Comment: ratsimp of ((SQRT(3)*%I/21/2)*(SQRT(84541)*%I/(6*SQRT(3)) 11/2)^(1/3)+28*(SQRT(3)*%I/21/2)/(3*(SQRT(84541) *%I/(6*SQRT(3))11/2)^(1/3))+4)^312*((SQRT(3)*% I/21/2)*(SQRT(84541)*%I/(6*SQRT(3))11/2)^(1/3) +28*(SQRT(3)*%I/21/2)/(3*(SQRT(84541)*%I/ (6*SQRT(3))11/2)^(1/3))+4)^2+20*((SQRT(3)*%I/2 1/2)*(SQRT(84541)*%I/(6*SQRT(3))11/2)^(1/3)+28* (SQRT(3)*%I/21/2)/(3*(SQRT(84541)*%I/(6*SQRT (3))11/2)^(1/3))+4)+59 gives "quotient by zero" for gcd = subres, red, or algebraic; and an infinite loop (or at least is taking a very long time) for mod. spmod and ez work. Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031027 18:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 By the way, all the gcd algorithms work correctly with algebraic:true (not the default).  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831445&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031027 23:44:51

Bugs item #831445, was opened at 20031027 18:44 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831445&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: gcd/subres  another case Initial Comment: ratsimp of ((SQRT(3)*%I/21/2)*(SQRT(84541)*%I/(6*SQRT(3)) 11/2)^(1/3)+28*(SQRT(3)*%I/21/2)/(3*(SQRT(84541) *%I/(6*SQRT(3))11/2)^(1/3))+4)^312*((SQRT(3)*% I/21/2)*(SQRT(84541)*%I/(6*SQRT(3))11/2)^(1/3) +28*(SQRT(3)*%I/21/2)/(3*(SQRT(84541)*%I/ (6*SQRT(3))11/2)^(1/3))+4)^2+20*((SQRT(3)*%I/2 1/2)*(SQRT(84541)*%I/(6*SQRT(3))11/2)^(1/3)+28* (SQRT(3)*%I/21/2)/(3*(SQRT(84541)*%I/(6*SQRT (3))11/2)^(1/3))+4)+59 gives "quotient by zero" for gcd = subres, red, or algebraic; and an infinite loop (or at least is taking a very long time) for mod. spmod and ez work. Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831445&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031027 23:37:53

Bugs item #711871, was opened at 20030329 12:46 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=711871&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: EZGCD: ratsimp((%i+2)/(%i+1)),gcd:ez inf loop Initial Comment: ratsimp((%i+2)/(%i+1)),gcd:ez; gets into an infinite loop inside ezgcd2. Maxima 5.9.0 GCL 2.5.0 Windows 2000  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031027 18:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 but ratsimp((%i+2)/(%i+1)),gcd:mod,algebraic does not  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031027 17:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 ratsimp((%i+2)/(%i+1)),gcd:mod; also gets into an infinite loop.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=711871&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031027 23:12:00

Bugs item #696818, was opened at 20030303 15:15 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=696818&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 6 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Taylor internal error (rat problem?) Initial Comment: taylor(asin(sin(x)+e),x,0,2) => Quotient by a polynomial of higher degree taylor(log(sqrt(e*%e^x+1)+e),x,0,2) => Quotient by a polynomial of higher degree Maxima version: 5.9.0 Maxima build date: 19:10 2/9/2003 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: Kyoto Common Lisp lispimplementationversion: GCL25.0  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031027 18:11 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 gcd:'algebraic (which calls subres internally) also fails.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030303 16:51 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Fateman suggested: > Sometimes changing the GCD algorithm to one without > a bug in it helps. gcd:subres for example. Thanks for the tip. Here are results with the different GCD algorithms. Subres/oldgcd is the default in 5.9.0, though the documentation says the default is Spmod/zgcd. The doc also claims that subres is the "new algorithm", though internally, confusingly, the Subres option calls oldgcd; has the mapping between names and functions changed?  taylor(asin(sin(x)+e),x,0,2),gcd:XXX; EZ OK =ezgcd2 SPMOD OK =zgcd FALSE OK MOD OK =newgcd (MOD option in code, not documented) SUBRES error =oldgcd RED error =oldgcd EEZ "EEZGCD is invalid as a function" SPHEN "SPHGCD is invalid as a function" (SPHEN option in code, not documented)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=696818&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031027 22:34:32

Bugs item #711871, was opened at 20030329 12:46 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=711871&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: EZGCD: ratsimp((%i+2)/(%i+1)),gcd:ez inf loop Initial Comment: ratsimp((%i+2)/(%i+1)),gcd:ez; gets into an infinite loop inside ezgcd2. Maxima 5.9.0 GCL 2.5.0 Windows 2000  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031027 17:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 ratsimp((%i+2)/(%i+1)),gcd:mod; also gets into an infinite loop.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=711871&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031027 21:46:45

Bugs item #831354, was opened at 20031027 16:45 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831354&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: beta(2,1) inconsistent Initial Comment: beta(2, 1) => 1/2 beta(2.0, 1) => 0.5 BUT beta(2.0, 1.0) => 0.25 The fundamental problem is that beta(x,y) is undefined as a continuous real function of both x and y at (2,1), but that beta(x,1) can be extended to be a well behaved continuous function of x, namely 1/x. This is essentially the same case as x^y at (0,0). Right now, Maxima simplifies x^0=>1 and 0^x=>0 (just like beta(x,1)). The difference is that Maxima gives an error for 0^0, 0.0^0, etc. Longerterm, it would be nice if 0^x kept as a side condition (x # 0) of the simplification, but for now....  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831354&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031027 17:25:16

Bugs item #831163, was opened at 20031027 12:25 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831163&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: part(x) should give warning Initial Comment: part(x) returns x. This is of course perfectly consistent (the null case), but it is certainly an error if actually input this way. True, it might be useful in the case apply(part,cons (expression,specifier)), where specifier is an argument, possibly the empty list, but using apply this way is somewhat unclean. I would prefer that there be an explicit form of part where the specifier is a list. The problem with that solution, of course, is that we'd then need corresponding versionf of substpart, inpart, substinpart. Yecch. For now, I would recommend giving a warning message for this case. It would be nice if there could, however, be only one such warning per interaction. I don't think we do anything like that right now.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831163&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031020 19:12:16

Bugs item #826915, was opened at 20031020 10:59 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=826915&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Solve wrong with irreducible polydecomp Initial Comment: poly: x^5+x3$ polypoly: subst(d2,x,d2); => (x^5+x3)^5+x^5+x6 solve(polypoly,x) => [0 = x^5+15*x^490*x^3+270*x^2406*x+249] This is incorrect. It is specifying the solutions of the outer composed polynomial (polydecomp), not the composition as a whole  that said, I don't think there is any notation in Maxima for specifying the composition of implicit solutions. Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=826915&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031020 08:12:29

Bugs item #826623, was opened at 20031020 00:25 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=826623&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: simplifer returns %i*%i Initial Comment: ((%i)^(1/2)*%i)*((%i)^(1/2)) => %i*%i Resimplifying  expand(%,0,0)  correctly returns 1. Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0 mingw32 W2k Athlon  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031020 01:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 This may be related to the inconsistent simplification of simple expressions involving %i: Mathematically, %i^(1/4) = (%i)^(1/4), but the first simplifies to (1)^(1/8) and the second to (%i)^(1/4) . Mathematically, (1)^(1/4) = %i^(1/2) = (%i)^(1/2), but the first two simplify to 1/(1)^(1/4), while the third simplifies to sqrt(%i). There are other similar cases. This is also reminiscent of the the nonnormalization of 1/sqrt(2)  bug # 721575.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=826623&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031020 08:07:16

Bugs item #798571, was opened at 20030901 10:10 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=798571&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisb) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: sign(sqrt(2)/2  1/sqrt(2)) > zero, pos, neg, or pnz Initial Comment: Depending on the values of fpprec and signbfloat, sign(sqrt(2)/2  1/sqrt(2)) evaluates to zero, pos, neg, or pnz. (C1) display2d : false; (D1) FALSE (C2) a : sqrt(2)/2  1/sqrt(2); (D2) SQRT(2)/21/SQRT(2) (C3) for k : 20 thru 25 do (fpprec : k, print(k,sign(a))); 20 ZERO 21 POS 22 ZERO 23 POS 24 ZERO 25 NEG (D3) DONE (C4) sign(a), signbfloat : true; (D4) NEG (C5) sign(a), signbfloat : false; (D5) PNZ Here is another example  this time sign(p) should evaluate to pos. (C7) p : exp(x)  sum(x^k/k!,k,0,15)$ (C8) p : subst(1/10000001,x,p)$ (C9) sign(p),signbfloat : true; (D9) ZERO (C10) sign(p),signbfloat : false; (D10) PNZ (C11) for k : 20 thru 25 do (fpprec : k, print(k,sign (p))); 20 POS 21 NEG 22 NEG 23 ZERO 24 POS 25 ZERO (D11) DONE (C12) Additionally, signbfloat isn't documented (C17) describe("signbfloat"); (D17) FALSE Barton  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031020 01:57 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 About the specific case of sqrt(2)/2  1/sqrt(2), cf. bug 721575  they should really simplify to a standard form and cancel. The general problem of using approximate arithmetic to check sign/is remains.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=798571&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031020 07:19:40

Bugs item #826623, was opened at 20031020 00:25 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=826623&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: simplifer returns %i*%i Initial Comment: ((%i)^(1/2)*%i)*((%i)^(1/2)) => %i*%i Resimplifying  expand(%,0,0)  correctly returns 1. Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0 mingw32 W2k Athlon  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=826623&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031020 05:26:08

Bugs item #826627, was opened at 20031020 00:49 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=826627&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate quotient (gcd?) problems Initial Comment: integrate( x*%E^(a*x/2)*SIN(SQRT(ba^2)*x) , x) => Quotient by a polynomial of higher degree Another similar problem: integrate( x*%E^(a*x)*SIN(SQRT(ba^2)*x/2) , x) => quotient is not exact Usually, this sort of problem is solved by changing GCD algorithm (setting the GCD variable), but in this case, all the GCD routines have the same problem. (Problem originally found by Jared Alem in assume (4*b>a^2)$ 'diff(y,x,2) + a*'diff(y,x) + b*y = c*x;) Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0 mingw32 W2k Athlon  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=826627&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031017 12:54:31

Bugs item #823084, was opened at 20031014 00:37 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by diemer You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=823084&group_id=4933 Category: Tests Group: None Status: Closed Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Submitted By: Jonas Diemer (diemer) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: IS often doesn't work Initial Comment: Hi! The IS function is used to evaluate if an expression is true, correct? It doesn't seem to like equations that are not factored out: 2*(x(y+x))=2*x2*(y+x); should be true, right? IS sais, it wasn't. Jonas PS: I am not an expert in CAS. If I reported complete bullshit, I would be happy about a short explanation why. thanks in advance.  >Comment By: Jonas Diemer (diemer) Date: 20031017 14:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=154672 I see. Maybe somthing about testing equality etc. could go in the Primer or somewhere else... Regards  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031017 08:18 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 In Maxima, is(...=...) tests for *syntactic* equality: the two expressions have the same structure. To test for *semantic* equality, use equal. In your example, is(equal(2*(x(y+x)),2*x2*(y+x)) returns true as you'd expect. That said, in many cases is/equal cannot determine the correct result, even if other parts of Maxima can  e.g. is (equal(sin(x)^2+cos(x)^2,1)). I agree that this is confusing, but this is the intended behavior.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=823084&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031017 06:19:07

Bugs item #823084, was opened at 20031013 18:37 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=823084&group_id=4933 Category: Tests Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Submitted By: Jonas Diemer (diemer) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: IS often doesn't work Initial Comment: Hi! The IS function is used to evaluate if an expression is true, correct? It doesn't seem to like equations that are not factored out: 2*(x(y+x))=2*x2*(y+x); should be true, right? IS sais, it wasn't. Jonas PS: I am not an expert in CAS. If I reported complete bullshit, I would be happy about a short explanation why. thanks in advance.  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031017 02:18 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 In Maxima, is(...=...) tests for *syntactic* equality: the two expressions have the same structure. To test for *semantic* equality, use equal. In your example, is(equal(2*(x(y+x)),2*x2*(y+x)) returns true as you'd expect. That said, in many cases is/equal cannot determine the correct result, even if other parts of Maxima can  e.g. is (equal(sin(x)^2+cos(x)^2,1)). I agree that this is confusing, but this is the intended behavior.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=823084&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031014 22:29:37

Bugs item #821021, was opened at 20031010 09:03 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by wjenkner You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821021&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: substpart changes its argument in cmucl maxima Initial Comment: Paolo Nason, INFN, sez. di Milano Universita' di MilanoBicocca, Dip. di Fisica "G. Occhialini", Piazza della Scienza, 3 20126 Milano Paolo.Nason@... In cmucl maxima substpart has side effects: (C26) lll:[1,2,3]; (D26) [1,2,3] (C27) substpart(5,lll,2); (D27) [1,5,3] (C28) lll; (D28) [1,5,3] lll has been modified. In gcl maxima: (C1) lll:[1,2,3]; (D1) [1, 2, 3] (C2) substpart(5,lll,2); (D2) [1, 5, 3] (C3) lll; (D3) [1, 2, 3] lll remains the same, as it should.  >Comment By: Wolfgang Jenkner (wjenkner) Date: 20031015 00:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=581700 Patch committed.  Comment By: Wolfgang Jenkner (wjenkner) Date: 20031010 17:58 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=581700 Thanks for the bug report. The problem seems to be that MPART (in comm.lisp) contains the form (SETQ EXP (copyalllevels EXP)) and COPYALLLEVELS is defined (in maxmac.lisp) as (DEFMACRO COPYALLLEVELS (LIST) #+(or cl NIL) `(COPYTREE ,LIST) #(or lispm NIL) `(SUBST NIL NIL ,LIST)) So the form above does the same thing as (setq exp (subst nil nil exp)). Now the CLHS says If no changes are made [by SUBST or friends], the original tree may be returned. This explains why GCL behaves in a different way from CMUCL (SBCL and CLISP behave like CMUCL). Since COPYALLLEVELS occurs only twice in the whole of Maxima and we support only ANSI CL anyway, I think that we don't need such an abstraction and we could just replace it by COPYTREE. Objections?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821021&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031013 22:37:31

Bugs item #823084, was opened at 20031014 00:37 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=823084&group_id=4933 Category: Tests Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Jonas Diemer (diemer) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: IS often doesn't work Initial Comment: Hi! The IS function is used to evaluate if an expression is true, correct? It doesn't seem to like equations that are not factored out: 2*(x(y+x))=2*x2*(y+x); should be true, right? IS sais, it wasn't. Jonas PS: I am not an expert in CAS. If I reported complete bullshit, I would be happy about a short explanation why. thanks in advance.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=823084&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031012 12:49:54

Bugs item #821108, was opened at 20031010 10:09 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by vvzhy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821108&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open >Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 Submitted By: Gael Fraiteur (gfraiteur) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Texmacs craches after launching a Maxima session Initial Comment: Using Cygwin, MikTex. Texmacs craches after launching a Maxima session. Many warnings and errors come in the buffer, then the application crashed (so I cannot read what was in the buffer). On the console, the following output:  TeXmacs] Launching 'tm_maxima' Fatal error: bad url in 'complete' See file : url.cpp  >Comment By: Vadim V. Zhytnikov (vvzhy) Date: 20031012 12:49 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=366498 This is not Maxima bug its is known TeXmacs bag/feature. When TeXmacs starts it tries to locate maxima_toc.html using tree methods (take a look in init_texmacs.cpp): 1) Loosk in several predefined places. 2) Parses maxima wrapper script trying to find value to MAXIMA_DIRECTORY environment variable. 3) Looks for maxima_toc.html using locate command. If none of 13 works then maxima will not start under TeXmacs with "bad url" message. Unfortunately often this is the case since 1) refers to 5.9.0 (not 5.9.01.1cvs); 2) presently there is no MAXIMA_DIRECTORY in the maxima script and in general this method will not work on Windows; 3) locate is not installed or locate database is out of date.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821108&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031012 03:39:34

Bugs item #822032, was opened at 20031011 23:39 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=822032&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 2 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: for i in 1.0b0 bogus /FIX Initial Comment: The "for var in list" allows list to be an arbitrary expression, and assigns var to the part(var,i)'s when list is nonatomic, e.g. for i in a+b+c do print(i) => a b c for i in a/b do print(i) => a b (note that this is the nformat'ed version) But it thinks the bfloat case is nonatomic: for i in 1.0b0 do print(i) => 36028797018963968 1 Fix is easy: in Mdoin (mlisp.lisp), replace atom by $atom in: OLD (SETQ SET (IF (ATOM (SETQ SET (FORMAT1... NEW (SETQ SET (IF ($ATOM (SETQ SET (FORMAT1...  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=822032&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031010 15:58:34

Bugs item #821021, was opened at 20031010 09:03 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by wjenkner You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821021&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: substpart changes its argument in cmucl maxima Initial Comment: Paolo Nason, INFN, sez. di Milano Universita' di MilanoBicocca, Dip. di Fisica "G. Occhialini", Piazza della Scienza, 3 20126 Milano Paolo.Nason@... In cmucl maxima substpart has side effects: (C26) lll:[1,2,3]; (D26) [1,2,3] (C27) substpart(5,lll,2); (D27) [1,5,3] (C28) lll; (D28) [1,5,3] lll has been modified. In gcl maxima: (C1) lll:[1,2,3]; (D1) [1, 2, 3] (C2) substpart(5,lll,2); (D2) [1, 5, 3] (C3) lll; (D3) [1, 2, 3] lll remains the same, as it should.  >Comment By: Wolfgang Jenkner (wjenkner) Date: 20031010 17:58 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=581700 Thanks for the bug report. The problem seems to be that MPART (in comm.lisp) contains the form (SETQ EXP (copyalllevels EXP)) and COPYALLLEVELS is defined (in maxmac.lisp) as (DEFMACRO COPYALLLEVELS (LIST) #+(or cl NIL) `(COPYTREE ,LIST) #(or lispm NIL) `(SUBST NIL NIL ,LIST)) So the form above does the same thing as (setq exp (subst nil nil exp)). Now the CLHS says If no changes are made [by SUBST or friends], the original tree may be returned. This explains why GCL behaves in a different way from CMUCL (SBCL and CLISP behave like CMUCL). Since COPYALLLEVELS occurs only twice in the whole of Maxima and we support only ANSI CL anyway, I think that we don't need such an abstraction and we could just replace it by COPYTREE. Objections?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821021&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031010 10:09:14

Bugs item #821108, was opened at 20031010 12:09 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821108&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Gael Fraiteur (gfraiteur) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Texmacs craches after launching a Maxima session Initial Comment: Using Cygwin, MikTex. Texmacs craches after launching a Maxima session. Many warnings and errors come in the buffer, then the application crashed (so I cannot read what was in the buffer). On the console, the following output:  TeXmacs] Launching 'tm_maxima' Fatal error: bad url in 'complete' See file : url.cpp  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821108&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031010 07:03:05

Bugs item #821021, was opened at 20031010 00:03 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821021&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: substpart changes its argument in cmucl maxima Initial Comment: Paolo Nason, INFN, sez. di Milano Universita' di MilanoBicocca, Dip. di Fisica "G. Occhialini", Piazza della Scienza, 3 20126 Milano Paolo.Nason@... In cmucl maxima substpart has side effects: (C26) lll:[1,2,3]; (D26) [1,2,3] (C27) substpart(5,lll,2); (D27) [1,5,3] (C28) lll; (D28) [1,5,3] lll has been modified. In gcl maxima: (C1) lll:[1,2,3]; (D1) [1, 2, 3] (C2) substpart(5,lll,2); (D2) [1, 5, 3] (C3) lll; (D3) [1, 2, 3] lll remains the same, as it should.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=821021&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031009 19:39:02

Bugs item #626697, was opened at 20021022 01:27 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=626697&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(atan2(y,x),y,minf) => FALSE Initial Comment: limit(atan2(y,x),y,minf) => FALSE The fix is in the very last clause of SIMPLIMIT. Currently, it is (if $limsubst <stuff>) It should be (if $limsubst <stuff> (nounlimit exp var val))  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031009 15:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Same problem, same solution for limit(BETA((a+1)/b,(ba 1)/b)/b,a,b1);  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=626697&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031009 17:40:40

Bugs item #820770, was opened at 20031009 13:40 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=820770&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: plog(x^2)=>2*log(x) Initial Comment: Plog is advertised as the principal branch of the complexvalued natural logarithm with %PI < CARG(X) <= +%PI This sounds very useful, and presumes that the regular 'log' function represents something other than the principal branch  perhaps all branches as a multivalued function? But plog(x^2) simplifies to 2*log(x) (after asking whether x is nonzero). This simplification is incorrect for x=1. The main meaning of plog appears to be that it will *carry out* the logarithm when the imagpart is a multiple of %pi/4. makelist([log(x),plog(x)],x,[1,%i,1+%i,%i*2,2+%i]) => [[0,0], [LOG(%I), %I*%PI/2 ], [LOG(%I+1), LOG(2)/2+%I*%PI/4 ], [LOG(2*%I), LOG(2)+%I*%PI/2 ], [LOG(%I+2), PLOG(%I+2) ] ] And the only use of plog within Maxima is by defint. I am not even sure that defint actually needs plog (as opposed to plain log)  maybe it is some sort of vestige?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=820770&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031009 03:21:11

Bugs item #721575, was opened at 20030414 23:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=721575&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 2/sqrt(2) doesn't simplify Initial Comment: 2/sqrt(2) doesn't simplify. Similarly for 2/2^(2/3). On the other hand, x/sqrt(x) => sqrt(x). And of course sqrt(2) simplifies to itself  it doesn't become 2/sqrt(2)!! I believe the original examples should simplify to sqrt(2) and 2^(1/3). Note that 2^(4/3) => 2*2^(1/3) (the current behavior) is probably CORRECT, in order to make things like 10^(10/3) intelligible. Or is there something I'm missing? Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0 mingw32 Windows 2000 Athlon  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031008 23:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 More examples. Righthand side is after ratsimp/algebraic. I believe the general simplifier should be giving those forms. 1/(2*2^(2/3)) 2^(1/3)/4 1/2^(2/3) 2^(1/3)/2 1/(2*SQRT(2)) SQRT(2)/4 1/SQRT(2) SQRT(2)/2 1/(2*2^(1/3)) 2^(2/3)/4 1/2^(1/3) 2^(2/3)/2 Things get worse with nonnumeric contents. In the following, each group of expressions denotes the same thing, but none simplifies to the others. I have put *** next to those forms which are the results of ratsimp/algebraic. Note that in several cases, there is more than one equivalent ratsimp'ed form.... 1/(a*b)^(5/2) 1/(a^2*b^2*SQRT(a*b)) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^3*b^3) *** 1/(a*b)^(3/2) 1/(a*b*SQRT(a*b)) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^2*b^2) *** 1/(a*b)^(7/6) 1/(a^(2/3)*b^(2/3)*SQRT(a*b)) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^(5/3)*b^(5/3)) *** (a*b)^(5/6)/(a^2*b^2) *** 1/(a*b)^(5/6) *** 1/(a^(1/3)*b^(1/3)*SQRT(a*b)) *** (a*b)^(1/6)/(a*b) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^(4/3)*b^(4/3)) *** 1/SQRT(a*b) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a*b) *** a^(1/3)*b^(1/3)/SQRT(a*b) *** 1/(a*b)^(1/6) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^(2/3)*b^(2/3)) *** (a*b)^(5/6)/(a*b) *** Now it is true that these expressions are in fact not all equivalent as to principal value, but I will leave that exercise for later. Many of them are, and they are not being canonicalized.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030417 14:53 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Yes, of course there are ways within Maxima to perform this simplification. But it should be the default in the general simplifer. The logic already appears to be in the general simplifier, but there is a bug in this particular case. If the general simplifier's philosophy were to leave such things untouched, why does it simplify x/sqrt(x) and the like?  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisb) Date: 20030417 14:44 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=570592 Try ratsimp with algebraic : true (C1) z : 2/sqrt(2); (D1) 2/SQRT(2) (C2) ratsimp(z); (D2) 2/SQRT(2) (C3) ratsimp(z),algebraic; (D3) SQRT(2) (C4) z : 2/2^(2/3); (D4) 2/2^(2/3) (C5) ratsimp(z); (D5) 2/2^(2/3) (C6) ratsimp(z),algebraic; (D6) 2^(1/3) (C7)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=721575&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031008 19:46:04

Bugs item #820188, was opened at 20031008 15:46 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=820188&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Simplifying inf and minf Initial Comment: The general simplifier currently treats the various non standard objects (inf, minf, und, ind, infinity) as though they were ordinary variables. This leads to incorrect results (infinf => 0, inf*0 => 0), incomplete simplification (inf^3 doesn't simplify, though inf is always correct), and noncanonical representations (minf doesn't simplify to inf). It also seems to me that minf should be represented uniformly as inf, not as a special case. Specialcasing these objects in the general simplifier will add a very small overhead to all simplifications. The case that reminded me of this problem is abs(minf) =>minf.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=820188&group_id=4933 