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
(3) 
2
(7) 
3
(3) 
4

5
(1) 
6
(2) 
7
(2) 
8

9
(8) 
10
(3) 
11
(2) 
12

13
(2) 
14

15

16

17
(1) 
18
(1) 
19
(4) 
20
(6) 
21
(7) 
22
(7) 
23
(13) 
24
(2) 
25
(6) 
26

27

28

29

30





From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041122 17:05:39

Bugs item #1070589, was opened at 20041121 15:26 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1070589&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Frank Thieme (lefloyd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: RANDOM with no argument fails Initial Comment: describe(random) claims: If no argument is given a random integer between 2^(29) and 2^(29) 1 is returned. but (%i41) random(); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Invalid number of arguments: 0 Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041122 12:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 What version of maxima? The documentation for the current CVS version doesn't say anything about not using any args for random.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1070589&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041122 14:43:12

Bugs item #1013950, was opened at 20040822 17:04 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1013950&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: Fix for 5.9.0 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Bessell problem during compile Initial Comment: The source code for maxima 5.9.0 will not compile under my Redhat Linux 9. When I run the make command, there is an error in the Bessel.lisp file. After deleting this file, I am able to compile and run maxima 5.9.0.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041122 09:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 More info needed. Which Lisp? Which version of lisp? Does this still fail with maxima 5.9.1? How about the CVS version.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1013950&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041122 14:39:33

Bugs item #1065573, was opened at 20041112 21:00 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1065573&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: It doesn't like plotting... Initial Comment: When I call the function plot2d or 3d, xmaxima gives me: (%o1) (%i2) and it doesn't draw anything... I'm using debian sid. When I was using SuSE it worked perfect. Thankx.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041122 09:39 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 More info required. What command did you give? Do you have gnuplot? Does it work?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1065573&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041121 20:26:31

Bugs item #1070589, was opened at 20041121 21:26 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=1070589&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Frank Thieme (lefloyd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: RANDOM with no argument fails Initial Comment: describe(random) claims: If no argument is given a random integer between 2^(29) and 2^(29) 1 is returned. but (%i41) random(); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Invalid number of arguments: 0 Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1070589&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041121 17:01:18

Bugs item #1070509, was opened at 20041121 10:01 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=1070509&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: casesensitive bugs in "tex" Initial Comment: The current rev of the "tex" function (as of 2004/11/21) has some problems that seem to stem from recent casesensitive patches. The filename argument is converted to uppercase if it was originally in lowercase. E.g. tex (foo, "bar.tex") writes "BAR.TEX". This is due to Maxima storing strings as Lisp symbols, I guess. It could be fixed by enclosing every call to "stripdollar" with "printinvertcase", perhaps. There are several "stripdollar" calls in src/mactex.lisp. The equation label generated by "tex" is uppercase when it should be lowercase, e.g. "(\%O5)" instead of "(\%o5)".  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1070509&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041121 16:28:06

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 17:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041121 08:28 Message: Logged In: NO BTW, triangularize is not a LU decomposition ! It seem that there is a such confusion with this thread. LU decomposition can be obtained by elementary row operations ( with the Gauss pivot algorith ), but I think that the triangularize function should calculate the matrix R as shown as above ( by calculating the eigenvalues/vector ). So no elementary row operation should be involved with the triangularize function.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041121 08:20 Message: Logged In: NO it really seems to me that there is a bug. Take a matrix A, non singular. The matrix R is triangularize(A) if, and only if, a matrix Q exist wich match: R = Q^1 * A * Q Ok with that ? So, here is the proof that det(A) == det(R): det(R) = det(Q^1 * A * Q) det(R) = det(Q^1) * det(A) * det(Q) det(R) = det(Q)^1 * det(A) * det(Q) det(R) = det(Q)/det(Q) * det(A) det(R) = 1 * det(A) So, det(R) = det(A) Are you Ok with this demonstration ?  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041121 06:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 The bug report doesn't display the actual results very well. The result is matrix([4, 0, 2],[0,4,0],[0,0,2]); For me, elementary row operations include multiplying a row by a constant. That definitely gives a different determinant. Anyway, I can obtain the given result by multiplying row 1 by 5 and row 3 by 4 and adding them to give a new matrix, matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[0,4,2]). Then multiply row 2 by 4 and add it to row 3 to get matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[0,0,2]). Each of these I consider elementary row operations, and clearly the determinant is not the same as the original. It seems to me you really want a very specific way of triangularizing a matrix.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041120 14:33 Message: Logged In: NO I'm not sure to understand the output %3 but is it saying that the second row is nul ? If so this say that det(trianularize(a))=0 but this impossible because det(a)!=0. Indeed swap rows do *not* conserve det(a) but *do* conserve det(a) . So in fact by your argument rtoy your saying that this report *is* a bug. Please consider this (even if the submiter was not really nice) ! Thanks in advance, a ph.d student in maths.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 06:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 For me elementary row operations include swapping rows. That doesn't preserve the determinant. Anyway, I don't want to argue over this. Convince someone else you are right and have them fix it for you.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 15:24 Message: Logged In: NO I don't trust you. You can't obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations ( or we don't have the same definition of elementary row operations ). if you don't know that the determinant must match, look at http://www.mathematicsonline.org/kurse/kurs10/seite151.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similar. You will learn that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix are similar ( first link) and that two similar matrix have the same determinant (second and third links). I've found the links with a simple google search . Next time, please search before you ask  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 13:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I can obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations. Please cite a reference that says the determinant must match.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 12:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 15:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041121 16:20:29

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 17:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041121 08:20 Message: Logged In: NO it really seems to me that there is a bug. Take a matrix A, non singular. The matrix R is triangularize(A) if, and only if, a matrix Q exist wich match: R = Q^1 * A * Q Ok with that ? So, here is the proof that det(A) == det(R): det(R) = det(Q^1 * A * Q) det(R) = det(Q^1) * det(A) * det(Q) det(R) = det(Q)^1 * det(A) * det(Q) det(R) = det(Q)/det(Q) * det(A) det(R) = 1 * det(A) So, det(R) = det(A) Are you Ok with this demonstration ?  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041121 06:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 The bug report doesn't display the actual results very well. The result is matrix([4, 0, 2],[0,4,0],[0,0,2]); For me, elementary row operations include multiplying a row by a constant. That definitely gives a different determinant. Anyway, I can obtain the given result by multiplying row 1 by 5 and row 3 by 4 and adding them to give a new matrix, matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[0,4,2]). Then multiply row 2 by 4 and add it to row 3 to get matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[0,0,2]). Each of these I consider elementary row operations, and clearly the determinant is not the same as the original. It seems to me you really want a very specific way of triangularizing a matrix.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041120 14:33 Message: Logged In: NO I'm not sure to understand the output %3 but is it saying that the second row is nul ? If so this say that det(trianularize(a))=0 but this impossible because det(a)!=0. Indeed swap rows do *not* conserve det(a) but *do* conserve det(a) . So in fact by your argument rtoy your saying that this report *is* a bug. Please consider this (even if the submiter was not really nice) ! Thanks in advance, a ph.d student in maths.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 06:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 For me elementary row operations include swapping rows. That doesn't preserve the determinant. Anyway, I don't want to argue over this. Convince someone else you are right and have them fix it for you.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 15:24 Message: Logged In: NO I don't trust you. You can't obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations ( or we don't have the same definition of elementary row operations ). if you don't know that the determinant must match, look at http://www.mathematicsonline.org/kurse/kurs10/seite151.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similar. You will learn that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix are similar ( first link) and that two similar matrix have the same determinant (second and third links). I've found the links with a simple google search . Next time, please search before you ask  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 13:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I can obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations. Please cite a reference that says the determinant must match.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 12:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 15:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041121 14:29:49

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 20:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041121 09:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 The bug report doesn't display the actual results very well. The result is matrix([4, 0, 2],[0,4,0],[0,0,2]); For me, elementary row operations include multiplying a row by a constant. That definitely gives a different determinant. Anyway, I can obtain the given result by multiplying row 1 by 5 and row 3 by 4 and adding them to give a new matrix, matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[0,4,2]). Then multiply row 2 by 4 and add it to row 3 to get matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[0,0,2]). Each of these I consider elementary row operations, and clearly the determinant is not the same as the original. It seems to me you really want a very specific way of triangularizing a matrix.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041120 17:33 Message: Logged In: NO I'm not sure to understand the output %3 but is it saying that the second row is nul ? If so this say that det(trianularize(a))=0 but this impossible because det(a)!=0. Indeed swap rows do *not* conserve det(a) but *do* conserve det(a) . So in fact by your argument rtoy your saying that this report *is* a bug. Please consider this (even if the submiter was not really nice) ! Thanks in advance, a ph.d student in maths.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 09:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 For me elementary row operations include swapping rows. That doesn't preserve the determinant. Anyway, I don't want to argue over this. Convince someone else you are right and have them fix it for you.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 18:24 Message: Logged In: NO I don't trust you. You can't obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations ( or we don't have the same definition of elementary row operations ). if you don't know that the determinant must match, look at http://www.mathematicsonline.org/kurse/kurs10/seite151.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similar. You will learn that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix are similar ( first link) and that two similar matrix have the same determinant (second and third links). I've found the links with a simple google search . Next time, please search before you ask  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 16:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I can obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations. Please cite a reference that says the determinant must match.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 15:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 18:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041121 05:07:17

Bugs item #822032, was opened at 20031011 23:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=822032&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed 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...  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041121 00:07 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Suggested fix applied.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=822032&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041121 04:47:12

Bugs item #895581, was opened at 20040212 04:35 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=895581&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Problem with diff Initial Comment: Hi, i view which the diff command don't function correctly. Example: diff(x+1,x); d  ( x+1) dx Why i don't view the correct result?  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 23:47 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This appears to be fixed, so I'm going to close this.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20040217 12:03 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 This was a known bug in certain builds (clisp, I think). Please provide full configuration information as given by bug_report();  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=895581&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041120 22:33:51

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 17:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041120 14:33 Message: Logged In: NO I'm not sure to understand the output %3 but is it saying that the second row is nul ? If so this say that det(trianularize(a))=0 but this impossible because det(a)!=0. Indeed swap rows do *not* conserve det(a) but *do* conserve det(a) . So in fact by your argument rtoy your saying that this report *is* a bug. Please consider this (even if the submiter was not really nice) ! Thanks in advance, a ph.d student in maths.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 06:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 For me elementary row operations include swapping rows. That doesn't preserve the determinant. Anyway, I don't want to argue over this. Convince someone else you are right and have them fix it for you.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 15:24 Message: Logged In: NO I don't trust you. You can't obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations ( or we don't have the same definition of elementary row operations ). if you don't know that the determinant must match, look at http://www.mathematicsonline.org/kurse/kurs10/seite151.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similar. You will learn that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix are similar ( first link) and that two similar matrix have the same determinant (second and third links). I've found the links with a simple google search . Next time, please search before you ask  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 13:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I can obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations. Please cite a reference that says the determinant must match.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 12:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 15:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041120 21:22:04

Bugs item #1049777, was opened at 20041019 01:44 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1049777&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: LOAD fails to define a function if referenced before Initial Comment: If I attempt to execute a function without loading it first, then I still can't execute the function even after trying to load it. For example: (%i1) fft (aa, bb); (%o1) fft(aa, bb) (%i2) load ("fft"); (%o2) /usr/share/maxima/5.9.1/share/numeric/fft.lisp (%i3) fft (aa, bb); (%o3) fft(aa, bb) Now contrast this  (%i1) load ("fft"); (%o1) /usr/share/maxima/5.9.1/share/numeric/fft.lisp (%i2) fft (aa, bb); arg aa to fft//ift//recttopolar//polartorect must be floating point array  an error. Quitting. To debug this try DEBUGMODE(TRUE); The error message shows the FFT was indeed executed. If a file defines several functions (e.g., .../share/vector/vect.mac) it looks like any functions not referenced before are successfully loaded, but any that were referenced before are not loaded. LOAD appears to avoid clobbering any existing variables; maybe the functionloading phenomenon described here is an aspect of that.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 16:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This problem no longer seems to occur with the casesensitive version of maxima in CVS.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20041102 01:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Changing (defun $fft ...) to (defun $fft ...) makes the problem go away, I've found.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1049777&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041120 21:18:07

Bugs item #1055605, was opened at 20041027 16:06 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1055605&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Ident gives error Initial Comment: This happens for the argument being a constant or a variable. (C1) ident(2); Improper argument to IDENT: 2  an error. Quitting. To debug this try DEBUGMODE(TRUE);) If you give me the matrixstoring format, I can try to run up a clisp ident function and send it in. Thanks much! nath5573@...  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 16:18 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I'm closing this, since it appears to work fine with CVS versions.  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20041109 16:52 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=895922 Works for me too with gcl 2.6.5 and XP. (%i3) ident(2); (%o3) MATRIX([1,0],[0,1]) (%i4) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.9.1.1cvs Maxima build date: 8:44 11/2/2004 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: Kyoto Common Lisp lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.5  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041109 16:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Works for me with clisp 2.33 and cmucl 19a+.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1055605&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041120 21:15:54

Bugs item #1058626, was opened at 20041102 01:28 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1058626&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: SAVE action with existing file differs depending on Lisp Initial Comment: What happens when SAVE is given an existing file as an argument depends on the underlying Lisp. If it's CMUCL, SAVE prints an error message ("file already exists" or something) and doesn't do anything else. If it's Clisp, SAVE clobbers the file with new contents. I didn't try GCL. I would recommend that SAVE always clobber the output file, but, in any event, it should be consistent.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 16:15 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 The different behavior is probably caused by the call to open in dsksetup in dskfn.lisp. We can probably make it consistent by specifying a value for the :ifexists option to open. Ask the mailing list for the desired behavior.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1058626&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041120 14:55:49

Bugs item #1052308, was opened at 20041022 12:19 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1052308&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(erf(n*x),n,inf) depends on n (x=0) Initial Comment: assume(equal(zz,0))$ limit(erf(n*zz),n,inf) => erf(n*zz) A limit result should be independent of the dummy variable!  in this case result is 0. For other functions, limit gets this right: makelist( limit(f(zz*x),x,inf) , f, [sin,exp,gamma,atan,erf] ) => [0, 1, 1, 0, ERF(x zz)] Limit/erf works correctly for zz>0 and zz<0.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 09:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Fix applied.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 17:35 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This is caused by simplim%erf%tanh taking the default branch and returning: (simplify (list (ncons fn) arg)) I think that "arg" should really be "arglim", because the arg has the known limit arglim, and erf (and tanh) don't have singularities anywhere to worry about.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1052308&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041120 14:21:50

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 20:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041120 09:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 For me elementary row operations include swapping rows. That doesn't preserve the determinant. Anyway, I don't want to argue over this. Convince someone else you are right and have them fix it for you.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 18:24 Message: Logged In: NO I don't trust you. You can't obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations ( or we don't have the same definition of elementary row operations ). if you don't know that the determinant must match, look at http://www.mathematicsonline.org/kurse/kurs10/seite151.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similar. You will learn that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix are similar ( first link) and that two similar matrix have the same determinant (second and third links). I've found the links with a simple google search . Next time, please search before you ask  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 16:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I can obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations. Please cite a reference that says the determinant must match.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 15:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 18:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041119 23:24:39

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 17:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 15:24 Message: Logged In: NO I don't trust you. You can't obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations ( or we don't have the same definition of elementary row operations ). if you don't know that the determinant must match, look at http://www.mathematicsonline.org/kurse/kurs10/seite151.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similar. You will learn that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix are similar ( first link) and that two similar matrix have the same determinant (second and third links). I've found the links with a simple google search . Next time, please search before you ask  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 13:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I can obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations. Please cite a reference that says the determinant must match.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 12:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 15:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041119 22:35:20

Bugs item #1052308, was opened at 20041022 12:19 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1052308&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(erf(n*x),n,inf) depends on n (x=0) Initial Comment: assume(equal(zz,0))$ limit(erf(n*zz),n,inf) => erf(n*zz) A limit result should be independent of the dummy variable!  in this case result is 0. For other functions, limit gets this right: makelist( limit(f(zz*x),x,inf) , f, [sin,exp,gamma,atan,erf] ) => [0, 1, 1, 0, ERF(x zz)] Limit/erf works correctly for zz>0 and zz<0.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 17:35 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This is caused by simplim%erf%tanh taking the default branch and returning: (simplify (list (ncons fn) arg)) I think that "arg" should really be "arglim", because the arg has the known limit arglim, and erf (and tanh) don't have singularities anywhere to worry about.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1052308&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041119 21:56:47

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 20:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 16:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I can obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations. Please cite a reference that says the determinant must match.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 15:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 18:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041119 20:19:00

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 17:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 12:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 15:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041118 16:00:02

Bugs item #1055926, was opened at 20041028 01:04 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1055926&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: It doesnt work at all Initial Comment: This Windows version does not work at all [Win 2000 Professional], it starts but as soon as anything is typed eg x: 1; it pops up an error: can't read "_WinInfo.maxima.text(atMaximaPrompt)": no such element in array can't read "_WinInfo.maxima.text(atMaximaPrompt)": no such element in array while executing "set _WinInfo[set win]($var)" (procedure "oget" line 4) invoked from within "oget $w atMaximaPrompt" (procedure "CMeval" line 24) invoked from within "CMeval .maxima.text " (command bound to event)  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041118 08:00 Message: Logged In: NO did anybody solved this problem?  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041103 08:17 Message: Logged In: NO Mmmh... I have the following cfg on Win2K Pro: Maxima version: 5.9.0.9beta2 Maxima build date: 10:50 7/27/2004 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: Kyoto Common Lisp lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.3 And Maxima works OK.... What's your configuration vesion? Cristian  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1055926&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041117 16:00:47

Bugs item #850343, was opened at 20031127 09:58 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=850343&group_id=4933 Category: Documentation Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Summary: Reorganize and clarify description of ev Initial Comment: The ev function is important and widely used, and its description is informative, but the description could be clearer. I suggest that the description be reorganized for greater clarity and comprehensibility. See also bug report #850334  add something about ev(exp, nouns) to the ev description.  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20041117 09:00 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Description of "ev" has been revised. Rev 1.17 of doc/info/Command.texi contains the recent changes. The content of the "ev" description is largely unchanged from the previous text but it is (I hope) clearer now.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=850343&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041113 02:31:31

Bugs item #1063219, was opened at 20041109 08:37 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1063219&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: plot2d Initial Comment: Maxima version: 5.9.1 Maxima build date: 7:34 9/24/2004 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: Kyoto Common Lisp lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.5 plot2d function does nothing at all. It worked perfectly in v. 5.9.0. ristoid@...  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041112 18:31 Message: Logged In: NO Look if you have installed gnuplot correctly.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041109 11:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 More information needed. What did you plot? Do you have gnuplot? What exactly happened?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1063219&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041113 02:00:48

Bugs item #1065573, was opened at 20041112 18:00 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=1065573&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: It doesn't like plotting... Initial Comment: When I call the function plot2d or 3d, xmaxima gives me: (%o1) (%i2) and it doesn't draw anything... I'm using debian sid. When I was using SuSE it worked perfect. Thankx.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1065573&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041111 23:04:21

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 20:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 18:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 