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}
(64) 
_{Sep}
(28) 
_{Oct}
(45) 
_{Nov}
(48) 
_{Dec}
(109) 
2015 
_{Jan}
(106) 
_{Feb}
(36) 
_{Mar}
(65) 
_{Apr}
(63) 
_{May}
(95) 
_{Jun}
(56) 
_{Jul}
(48) 
_{Aug}
(55) 
_{Sep}
(100) 
_{Oct}
(12) 
_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 







1
(1) 
2

3

4

5

6

7
(3) 
8

9

10
(1) 
11
(1) 
12

13

14

15

16
(1) 
17

18
(1) 
19
(1) 
20

21
(4) 
22

23
(3) 
24
(4) 
25
(4) 
26
(3) 
27
(2) 
28
(3) 
29
(1) 
30
(6) 
31
(4) 





From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050131 18:55:03

Bugs item #1113377, was opened at 20050131 10:55 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=1113377&group_id=4933 Category: Xmaxima Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: maxout.gnuplot Initial Comment: I´m using maxima on win98se. The commands plot2d and plot3d are working. But maxima everytime produces a file maxout.gnuplot and leaves it on my desktop. What can i do? Besides i´ve got another question: I installed gnuplot before maxima. Does maxima find my "old" gnuplot or have i got to use the gnuplot that comes with maxima ?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1113377&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050131 17:49:52

Bugs item #1113324, was opened at 20050131 12:49 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=1113324&group_id=4933 Category: Tests Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: specint tests in rtest14 need verification Initial Comment: The specint tests in rtest14 need independent verification. Some tests look incorrect but need to be verifiied.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1113324&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050131 17:48:02

Bugs item #1109113, was opened at 20050125 09:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1109113&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Piet van Oostrum (pietvo) Assigned to: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Summary: Make check fails with maxima CVS Initial Comment: I tried to install Maxima CVS on MacOSX. Make check fails in rtest14. I tried both with GCL 2.6.6 and Clisp 2.29 Maxima release 5.9.1 works properly. Here is the test output: Running tests in rtest14.mac: ********************** Problem 52 *************** Input:  p t radcan(specint(t hstruve (t) %e , t)) 1 Result: 2 2 2 2 2 sqrt(p + 1) (8 p log(sqrt(p + 1)  1)  8 p log(p))  8 p  8   6 4 2 sqrt(%pi) (3 %pi p + 6 %pi p + 3 %pi p ) This differed from the expected result: 2 2 16 (2 p + 2 p sqrt(1 + p ))  3/2 4 2 2 9 %pi p (1 + 2 p + 2 p sqrt(1 + p )) ********************** Problem 60 *************** Input: 1/2  p t specint(t %h (t) %e , t) 3/4, 2 Result: 1 3 1 3 1 3/8 2 %i assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() (  1) 2 4 1 4 1 sqrt( + 1)  + 1 2 2 p p  1 3/8 3/4 sqrt(2) ( + 1) p 2 p 1 1 3 1 5 %i gamma() assoc_legendre_p(,  , ) 4 2 4 1 sqrt( + 1) 2 p +  1 3/8 1 9/8 9/4 16 (  1) ( + 1) p 1 2  + 1 p 2 p 1 1 3 1 5 gamma() assoc_legendre_p(,  , ) 4 2 4 1 sqrt( + 1) 2 p +  1 3/8 1 9/8 9/4 16 (  1) ( + 1) p 1 2  + 1 p 2 p This differed from the expected result:  3 3 1 3 3/4 4 %i assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() p 2 4 1 4 sqrt(1 + ) 2 p  3/4 2 1 1 3/8 ( 1) gamma () (  1) 4 4 p  3  3 1 1 1 3/8 9/4 5 assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() (  1) p 2 4 1 4 4 sqrt(1 + ) p 2 p +  1/4 2 3 18 ( 1) sqrt(2) gamma () 4  3  3 1 1 1 3/8 9/4 5 %i assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() (  1) p 2 4 1 4 4 sqrt(1 + ) p 2 p +  1/4 2 3 18 ( 1) sqrt(2) gamma () 4 83/85 tests passed. The following 2 problems failed: (60 52)  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20050131 12:48 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 These tests have been disabled. I can't find an independent value for test 52, and test 60 is a bug in maxima somewhere.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20050125 17:44 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 A known problem caused by fixes in hyp.lisp. I will fix this soon, by either finding out what the real answer should be or by making this a known issue so these tests aren't run by default.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1109113&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050131 16:05:29

Bugs item #1107784, was opened at 20050123 09:40 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1107784&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: Fix for 5.9.0 >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Gian Paolo Bronzetti (a_toy_lab) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Plot2/3D: If a Limit is an Integer Fraction Initial Comment: (%i14) plot2d(2*x,[x,5,5])$ is OK, while, if 5 > 5/2 (%i15) plot2d(2*x,[x,5,5/2])$ Bad Range [x,5,5/2] must be of the form [variable,min,max]  an error. Quitting. To debug this try DEBUGMODE(TRUE); The same happens using plot3d(). If 5/2 > 5.0/2 then it works OK (Amundson) Paolo  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20050131 11:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Fixed.  Comment By: FrancoB (franco68tn) Date: 20050123 11:14 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1074823 plot2d(2*x,[x,5,float(5/2)])$ is also OK. Franco  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1107784&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050130 23:04:57

Bugs item #1073338, was opened at 20041125 13:21 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1073338&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: integrate yields incorrect result on rational function Initial Comment: "integrate" yields incorrect results on some rational functions. "Division by 0" is strange. The definite integral below is certainly greater than 0 as the integrand is positive over [0, 1]. "integrate (1/((x3)^4+1/2), x)" returns the noun form, so maybe (maybe) what happens is that the noun form is evaluated at the limits of integration and it's the same, hence 0 is the result. (Just guessing there.) Note that the difference between the two integrands is that one is 1/(something + 1), while the other is 1/(same something + 1/2).  (%i1) integrate (1/((x3)^4+1), x, 0, 1); Division by 0  an error. Quitting. To debug this try DEBUGMODE(TRUE); (%i2) integrate (1/((x3)^4+1/2), x, 0, 1); (%o2) 0 (%i3) build_info (); Maxima version: 5.9.1 Maxima build date: 21:24 9/23/2004 host type: i686pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: CMU Common Lisp lispimplementationversion: 19a  Same behavior observed in CVS build of 2004/11/24.  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20050130 18:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 This is apparently another GCD problem. Fixed by setting the 'algebraic' flag: integrate (1/((x3)^4+1), x, 0, 1),algebraic:true For the indefinite integral, you can factor over the Gaussians then use partfrac: integrate ( partfrac ( gfactor( 1/((x3)^4+1) ), x ), x ) You can simplify the result using ratsimp(rectform(...)) s  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20050118 16:17 Message: Logged In: NO Two remarks: The method that Maxima uses to solve such integrals is integration by residues. Trace (residue) shows that this function is called with the correct arguments but answers zeroes for integrate (1/((x3)^4+1/2), x, 0, 1); and runs into a division by zero for the other integral. The indefinite integrals can be solved with changevar: 'Integrate(1/((x3)^4+1/2), x); changevar (%, x  3  y ,y ,x); ev (%, Integrate);  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1073338&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050130 22:44:14

Bugs item #1111390, was opened at 20050128 07:03 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1111390&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: nroots(sqrt(3),minf,inf) & .... Initial Comment: nroots claims that 1 isn't a univariate polynomial, and that sqrt(3) is. This is chaotic. Further, nroots(%pi,minf,inf) > 1, nroots(sqrt(3),minf,inf) > 1. These are both wrong. It's not clear from the documentation, but it seems that nroots does not allow algebraic coefficients; if that's the case, the documentation should say so. Finally, nroots counts multiplicities, but the user documentation doesn't say that it does. (%i1) nroots(1,minf,inf); Argument must be a univariate polynomial  an error. Quitting. To debug this try DEBUGMODE (TRUE); (%i2) nroots(sqrt(3),minf,inf); (%o2) 1 (%i3) nroots(%pi,minf,inf); (%o3) 1 (%i4) nroots(sqrt(3)*x+sqrt(7)); Argument must be a univariate polynomial  an error. Quitting. To debug this try DEBUGMODE (TRUE); (%i14) nroots(x^2,minf,inf); (%o14) 2 One more comment about the documentationit doesn't mention what happends when low > high. (%i18) nroots(x^2,1,1); (%o18)  2 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 Barton  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20050130 17:44 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Agreed that the univariate polynomial stuff is random. As for excluding algebraic coefficients.... I agree that this should be documented. The method (Sturm sequences) is exact for exact evaluation of polynomials. Exact evaluation is easy for rational coefficients. The result is approximate for approximate coefficients (floats), which is also fine. However, though algebraic numbers are exact, calculating with them exactly is a problem. If this matters to you, I suppose you can use increasingly precise intervals until the signs are unambiguous (though checking for 0 is harder...), but Maxima doesn't currently support interval arithmetic. Anyway, what I would suggest is not changing the documentation, but instead converting algebraic numbers to rationals (at what precision?) and giving the warning: Warning: nroots will not always give exact results with nonrational coefficients Unfortunately, nroots does not currently support bfloats....  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1111390&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050130 22:27:00

Bugs item #1045514, was opened at 20041012 11:38 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1045514&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: conjugate(complex) wrong Initial Comment: declare(z,complex) conjugate(z) > z  should be nounform (conjugate loaded from EIGEN)  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20050130 17:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 I am not sure why you mention lists and matrices  all Maxima functions are supposed to handle those cases (though admittedly they don't all do it). For all *analytic* functions and real variables, the current definition is correct, and often gives far smaller expressions than using rectform would. However, it is incorrect for nonanalytic functions (like carg) and nonreal variables. For that matter, rectform also assumes that functions it doesn't know always have purereal values. Try, for example, realpart(f(%i)) or rp(%i!). It is straightforward enough to write a proper $conjugate function that takes that into account  most of the work would in fact go into establishing the list of analytic functions!: though there is in principle a Maxima feature 'analytic', it is not used at all currently. It is not clear what the right thing to do about unknown functions is. In general, Maxima assumes that functions and variables are realvalued  even if the function arguments are nonreal. We probably don't want rectform(f(x)) for unknown f and x to return 'realpart(f(x)) + 'imagpart(f(x))*%i.... But returning that only if x is known nonreal seems arbitrary, too. Consider realpart(f(x)) => f(x) ... where f turns out to be sqrt.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20050130 17:25 Message: Logged In: NO I am not sure why you mention lists and matrices  all Maxima functions are supposed to handle those cases (though admittedly they don't all do it). For all *analytic* functions and real variables, the current definition is correct, and often gives far smaller expressions than using rectform would. However, it is incorrect for nonanalytic functions (like carg) and nonreal variables. For that matter, rectform also assumes that functions it doesn't know always have purereal values. Try, for example, realpart(f(%i)) or rp(%i!). It is straightforward enough to write a proper $conjugate function that takes that into account  most of the work would in fact go into establishing the list of analytic functions!: though there is in principle a Maxima feature 'analytic', it is not used at all currently. It is not clear what the right thing to do about unknown functions is. In general, Maxima assumes that functions and variables are realvalued  even if the function arguments are nonreal. We probably don't want rectform(f(x)) for unknown f and x to return 'realpart(f(x)) + 'imagpart(f(x))*%i.... But returning that only if x is known nonreal seems arbitrary, too. Consider realpart(f(x)) => f(x) ... where f turns out to be sqrt.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20050129 13:15 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 The defn of conjugate is conjugate(x) := sublis('([%i =  %i]), x)$ which is useful since it can be applied to lists and matrices (among other objects) but it seems too simpleminded. The defn above can yield a wrong answer if its argument is a real function of a complex variable. E.g., conjugate('carg(a+b %i)) yields 'carg (ab %i)  oops. Maybe the right answer is to kill off the existing defn and replace it with conjugate(x) := realpart(x)  %i*imagpart(x)$ ?? realpart and imagpart know about lists and matrices, maybe other objects, so the convenience of the existing defn doesn't seem compelling. Also realpart and imagpart know about carg (as they should).  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1045514&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050130 22:25:44

Bugs item #1045514, was opened at 20041012 08:38 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1045514&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: conjugate(complex) wrong Initial Comment: declare(z,complex) conjugate(z) > z  should be nounform (conjugate loaded from EIGEN)  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20050130 14:25 Message: Logged In: NO I am not sure why you mention lists and matrices  all Maxima functions are supposed to handle those cases (though admittedly they don't all do it). For all *analytic* functions and real variables, the current definition is correct, and often gives far smaller expressions than using rectform would. However, it is incorrect for nonanalytic functions (like carg) and nonreal variables. For that matter, rectform also assumes that functions it doesn't know always have purereal values. Try, for example, realpart(f(%i)) or rp(%i!). It is straightforward enough to write a proper $conjugate function that takes that into account  most of the work would in fact go into establishing the list of analytic functions!: though there is in principle a Maxima feature 'analytic', it is not used at all currently. It is not clear what the right thing to do about unknown functions is. In general, Maxima assumes that functions and variables are realvalued  even if the function arguments are nonreal. We probably don't want rectform(f(x)) for unknown f and x to return 'realpart(f(x)) + 'imagpart(f(x))*%i.... But returning that only if x is known nonreal seems arbitrary, too. Consider realpart(f(x)) => f(x) ... where f turns out to be sqrt.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20050129 10:15 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 The defn of conjugate is conjugate(x) := sublis('([%i =  %i]), x)$ which is useful since it can be applied to lists and matrices (among other objects) but it seems too simpleminded. The defn above can yield a wrong answer if its argument is a real function of a complex variable. E.g., conjugate('carg(a+b %i)) yields 'carg (ab %i)  oops. Maybe the right answer is to kill off the existing defn and replace it with conjugate(x) := realpart(x)  %i*imagpart(x)$ ?? realpart and imagpart know about lists and matrices, maybe other objects, so the convenience of the existing defn doesn't seem compelling. Also realpart and imagpart know about carg (as they should).  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1045514&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050130 12:40:54

Bugs item #1112532, was opened at 20050130 06:40 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=1112532&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: zeta declared posfun Initial Comment: The zeta function is declared to be a positive function (%i70) featurep(zeta,'posfun); (%o70) TRUE This isn't truefor example, zeta(1) = 1/12. The bogus declaration is in the file compar.lisp. Barton  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1112532&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050130 11:33:15

Bugs item #1112510, was opened at 20050130 05:33 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=1112510&group_id=4933 Category: Documentation Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 2 Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: no user documentation for 'maybe' Initial Comment: There is no user documentation for 'maybe.' At least, 'describe' can't find any. 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 Barton  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1112510&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050129 18:15:34

Bugs item #1045514, was opened at 20041012 09:38 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1045514&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: conjugate(complex) wrong Initial Comment: declare(z,complex) conjugate(z) > z  should be nounform (conjugate loaded from EIGEN)  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20050129 11:15 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 The defn of conjugate is conjugate(x) := sublis('([%i =  %i]), x)$ which is useful since it can be applied to lists and matrices (among other objects) but it seems too simpleminded. The defn above can yield a wrong answer if its argument is a real function of a complex variable. E.g., conjugate('carg(a+b %i)) yields 'carg (ab %i)  oops. Maybe the right answer is to kill off the existing defn and replace it with conjugate(x) := realpart(x)  %i*imagpart(x)$ ?? realpart and imagpart know about lists and matrices, maybe other objects, so the convenience of the existing defn doesn't seem compelling. Also realpart and imagpart know about carg (as they should).  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1045514&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050128 12:03:06

Bugs item #1111390, was opened at 20050128 06:03 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=1111390&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: nroots(sqrt(3),minf,inf) & .... Initial Comment: nroots claims that 1 isn't a univariate polynomial, and that sqrt(3) is. This is chaotic. Further, nroots(%pi,minf,inf) > 1, nroots(sqrt(3),minf,inf) > 1. These are both wrong. It's not clear from the documentation, but it seems that nroots does not allow algebraic coefficients; if that's the case, the documentation should say so. Finally, nroots counts multiplicities, but the user documentation doesn't say that it does. (%i1) nroots(1,minf,inf); Argument must be a univariate polynomial  an error. Quitting. To debug this try DEBUGMODE (TRUE); (%i2) nroots(sqrt(3),minf,inf); (%o2) 1 (%i3) nroots(%pi,minf,inf); (%o3) 1 (%i4) nroots(sqrt(3)*x+sqrt(7)); Argument must be a univariate polynomial  an error. Quitting. To debug this try DEBUGMODE (TRUE); (%i14) nroots(x^2,minf,inf); (%o14) 2 One more comment about the documentationit doesn't mention what happends when low > high. (%i18) nroots(x^2,1,1); (%o18)  2 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 Barton  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1111390&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050128 00:28:09

Bugs item #1111141, was opened at 20050128 08:19 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by zouyc You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1111141&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: zouyc (zouyc) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: A problem when convert to Tex Initial Comment: When I get a results like "1.1E+12^p", it can't be converted to Tex correctly by using "tex()" command. Because maxima only converts the expression to "1.1\times 10^12^p", but not "{1.1\times 10^12}^p". However, "1.1\times 10^12^p" doesn't obey the Latex's syntax. Example: (%i1) tex(1.1E12^p); $$1.1 \times 10^{12}^{p}$$  >Comment By: zouyc (zouyc) Date: 20050128 08:28 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1206065 Sorry, I posted it twice by mistake :( Please delete one.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1111141&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050128 00:19:38

Bugs item #1111141, was opened at 20050128 08:19 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=1111141&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: zouyc (zouyc) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: A problem when convert to Tex Initial Comment: When I get a results like "1.1E+12^p", it can't be converted to Tex correctly by using "tex()" command. Because maxima only converts the expression to "1.1\times 10^12^p", but not "{1.1\times 10^12}^p". However, "1.1\times 10^12^p" doesn't obey the Latex's syntax. Example: (%i1) tex(1.1E12^p); $$1.1 \times 10^{12}^{p}$$  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1111141&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050127 23:06:46

Bugs item #590222, was opened at 20020802 12:00 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=590222&group_id=4933 >Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: powerseries doesn't Initial Comment: From a note from Harvey Stein, maxima doesn't even work for this problem anymore: (C1) powerseries(1/sqrt(1+x), x, 0); Typeerror in KERNEL::OBJECTNOTLISTERRORHANDLER: MEXPT is not of type LIST  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20050127 18:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I think the fix for FREE is ok. There's also the same bug in SMONOGEN. Fixing these two functions is easy, but perhaps the right fix is to create a maximacaar that returns nil if the arg is not a list? I'm not keen on replacing every use of caar with maximacaar, though.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20020818 14:28 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Consider this with gcl (defun foo (x) (caar x)) (compile 'foo) (foo '(mexpt simp)) which returns NIL, unlike CMUCL and Clisp. A possible fix is the following version of FREE (simp.lisp). It fixes the symptoms, but not necessarily the underlying problem. (DEFMFUN FREE (EXP VAR) (COND ((ALIKE1 EXP VAR) NIL) ((ATOM EXP) T) (T (AND (FREE (and (listp (car exp)) (CAAR EXP)) VAR) (FREEL (CDR EXP) VAR)))))  Comment By: James Amundson (amundson) Date: 20020803 14:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28457 I see the same behavior using Clisp and CMUCL, but the bug is not present using GCL. I tested using Linux.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=590222&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050127 14:03:49

Bugs item #1110733, was opened at 20050127 22:03 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=1110733&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: zouyc (zouyc) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: A problem when convert to Tex Initial Comment: When I get a results like "1.1E+12^p", it can't be converted to Tex correctly by using "tex()" command. Because maxima only converts the expression to "1.1\times 10^12^p", but not "{1.1\times 10^12}^p". However, "1.1\times 10^12^p" doesn't obey the Latex's syntax. Example: (%i1) tex(1.1E12^p); $$1.1 \times 10^{12}^{p}$$  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1110733&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050126 19:02:39

Bugs item #1102913, was opened at 20050115 08:23 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1102913&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: file_search_lisp Initial Comment: The default for file_search_lisp is missing a few directories in .../share/contrib. It's missing Grobner, numericalio, maximamathml, rand, format, and unit. Is there a way to implicitly add all directories in share? (%i1) load("maximagrobner"); Could not find `maximagrobner' using paths in FILE_SEARCH_MAXIMA,FILE_SEARCH_LISP (combined values: load ("C:/PROGRA~1/MAXIMA~1.1/share/maxima/5.9.1/share/ contrib/Grobner/maximagrobner.lisp"); (%i3) build_info(); 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 Barton  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20050126 14:02 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 We could probably have configure create the appropriate list of directories. It would be much nicer, I think, if we could do this at runtime, but I don't think there's a portable way of getting the list of directories and subdirectories, other than calling unix find and looking at the output.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1102913&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050126 04:42:41

Bugs item #1109601, was opened at 20050125 21:27 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1109601&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: batch sometimes returns nothing/ proposed fix Initial Comment: batch ("foo.mac") might return "/home/whatever/foo.mac" or it might return nothing (not even done or false), depending on the content of foo.mac. If the file ends with a comment, then batch returns the filename. Otherwise, batch returns nothing. From looking at the code it appears the intent is to return the path, but it's getting goofed up somehow  looks like it has something to do with continue. Here are the relevant lines of code (circa lines 728732 in src/mload.lisp): (withopenfile (instream filename) (format t "~%batching ~A" (truename instream)) (continue instream demo) (namestring instream))))) If this code is modified to print a message just before the final (namestring instream), the message is printed if the file ends with a comment and not otherwise. So it looks like continue is throwing or returnfroming or something?? Haven't investigated continue, so that's just a speculation. Example: $ cat << EOF > foo.mac a: 1$ EOF $ cat << EOF > bar.mac a: 1$ /* FOOBAR */ EOF $ maxima (%i1) foo_return: batch ("foo.mac")$ batching /home/robert/maxima/sandbox/tmp/foo.mac (%i2) a : 1 (%i3) bar_return: batch ("bar.mac")$ batching /home/robert/maxima/sandbox/tmp/bar.mac (%i4) a : 1 (%i5) foo_return; (%o5) foo_return (%i6) bar_return; (%o6) bar.mac  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20050125 21:42 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 continue is apparently throwing 'macsymaquit when it gets to EOF and there is no comment there. (Why that doesn't happen if there is a comment at EOF, I don't know.) Catching 'macsymaquit in $batch causes the final (namestring instream) to be evaluated, which is what we want, I think. I propose this patch  substitute this line for 731 in src/mload.lisp  (catch 'macsymaquit (continue instream demo)) which at present is just (continue instream demo)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1109601&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050126 04:27:46

Bugs item #1109601, was opened at 20050125 21:27 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=1109601&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: batch sometimes returns the filename, sometimes nothing Initial Comment: batch ("foo.mac") might return "/home/whatever/foo.mac" or it might return nothing (not even done or false), depending on the content of foo.mac. If the file ends with a comment, then batch returns the filename. Otherwise, batch returns nothing. From looking at the code it appears the intent is to return the path, but it's getting goofed up somehow  looks like it has something to do with continue. Here are the relevant lines of code (circa lines 728732 in src/mload.lisp): (withopenfile (instream filename) (format t "~%batching ~A" (truename instream)) (continue instream demo) (namestring instream))))) If this code is modified to print a message just before the final (namestring instream), the message is printed if the file ends with a comment and not otherwise. So it looks like continue is throwing or returnfroming or something?? Haven't investigated continue, so that's just a speculation. Example: $ cat << EOF > foo.mac a: 1$ EOF $ cat << EOF > bar.mac a: 1$ /* FOOBAR */ EOF $ maxima (%i1) foo_return: batch ("foo.mac")$ batching /home/robert/maxima/sandbox/tmp/foo.mac (%i2) a : 1 (%i3) bar_return: batch ("bar.mac")$ batching /home/robert/maxima/sandbox/tmp/bar.mac (%i4) a : 1 (%i5) foo_return; (%o5) foo_return (%i6) bar_return; (%o6) bar.mac  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1109601&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050125 22:44:15

Bugs item #1109113, was opened at 20050125 09:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1109113&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Piet van oostrum (pietvo) >Assigned to: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Summary: Make check fails with maxima CVS Initial Comment: I tried to install Maxima CVS on MacOSX. Make check fails in rtest14. I tried both with GCL 2.6.6 and Clisp 2.29 Maxima release 5.9.1 works properly. Here is the test output: Running tests in rtest14.mac: ********************** Problem 52 *************** Input:  p t radcan(specint(t hstruve (t) %e , t)) 1 Result: 2 2 2 2 2 sqrt(p + 1) (8 p log(sqrt(p + 1)  1)  8 p log(p))  8 p  8   6 4 2 sqrt(%pi) (3 %pi p + 6 %pi p + 3 %pi p ) This differed from the expected result: 2 2 16 (2 p + 2 p sqrt(1 + p ))  3/2 4 2 2 9 %pi p (1 + 2 p + 2 p sqrt(1 + p )) ********************** Problem 60 *************** Input: 1/2  p t specint(t %h (t) %e , t) 3/4, 2 Result: 1 3 1 3 1 3/8 2 %i assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() (  1) 2 4 1 4 1 sqrt( + 1)  + 1 2 2 p p  1 3/8 3/4 sqrt(2) ( + 1) p 2 p 1 1 3 1 5 %i gamma() assoc_legendre_p(,  , ) 4 2 4 1 sqrt( + 1) 2 p +  1 3/8 1 9/8 9/4 16 (  1) ( + 1) p 1 2  + 1 p 2 p 1 1 3 1 5 gamma() assoc_legendre_p(,  , ) 4 2 4 1 sqrt( + 1) 2 p +  1 3/8 1 9/8 9/4 16 (  1) ( + 1) p 1 2  + 1 p 2 p This differed from the expected result:  3 3 1 3 3/4 4 %i assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() p 2 4 1 4 sqrt(1 + ) 2 p  3/4 2 1 1 3/8 ( 1) gamma () (  1) 4 4 p  3  3 1 1 1 3/8 9/4 5 assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() (  1) p 2 4 1 4 4 sqrt(1 + ) p 2 p +  1/4 2 3 18 ( 1) sqrt(2) gamma () 4  3  3 1 1 1 3/8 9/4 5 %i assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() (  1) p 2 4 1 4 4 sqrt(1 + ) p 2 p +  1/4 2 3 18 ( 1) sqrt(2) gamma () 4 83/85 tests passed. The following 2 problems failed: (60 52)  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20050125 17:44 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 A known problem caused by fixes in hyp.lisp. I will fix this soon, by either finding out what the real answer should be or by making this a known issue so these tests aren't run by default.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1109113&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050125 22:41:51

Bugs item #1097915, was opened at 20050107 10:21 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1097915&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: hgfred([a,a],[1/2],z) vs hgfred([a,a],[1/2],z) Initial Comment: A&S 15.1.11 gives the result for hgfred([a,a],[1/2],z^2). maxima gets this right. But hgfred([a,a],[1/2],z^2) = hgfred([a,a],[1/2],z^2) but maxima gets the wrong answer for hgfred([a,a],[1/2],z^2).  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20050125 17:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This is fixed now.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1097915&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050125 14:39:26

Bugs item #1109113, was opened at 20050125 14:39 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=1109113&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Piet van oostrum (pietvo) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Make check fails with maxima CVS Initial Comment: I tried to install Maxima CVS on MacOSX. Make check fails in rtest14. I tried both with GCL 2.6.6 and Clisp 2.29 Maxima release 5.9.1 works properly. Here is the test output: Running tests in rtest14.mac: ********************** Problem 52 *************** Input:  p t radcan(specint(t hstruve (t) %e , t)) 1 Result: 2 2 2 2 2 sqrt(p + 1) (8 p log(sqrt(p + 1)  1)  8 p log(p))  8 p  8   6 4 2 sqrt(%pi) (3 %pi p + 6 %pi p + 3 %pi p ) This differed from the expected result: 2 2 16 (2 p + 2 p sqrt(1 + p ))  3/2 4 2 2 9 %pi p (1 + 2 p + 2 p sqrt(1 + p )) ********************** Problem 60 *************** Input: 1/2  p t specint(t %h (t) %e , t) 3/4, 2 Result: 1 3 1 3 1 3/8 2 %i assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() (  1) 2 4 1 4 1 sqrt( + 1)  + 1 2 2 p p  1 3/8 3/4 sqrt(2) ( + 1) p 2 p 1 1 3 1 5 %i gamma() assoc_legendre_p(,  , ) 4 2 4 1 sqrt( + 1) 2 p +  1 3/8 1 9/8 9/4 16 (  1) ( + 1) p 1 2  + 1 p 2 p 1 1 3 1 5 gamma() assoc_legendre_p(,  , ) 4 2 4 1 sqrt( + 1) 2 p +  1 3/8 1 9/8 9/4 16 (  1) ( + 1) p 1 2  + 1 p 2 p This differed from the expected result:  3 3 1 3 3/4 4 %i assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() p 2 4 1 4 sqrt(1 + ) 2 p  3/4 2 1 1 3/8 ( 1) gamma () (  1) 4 4 p  3  3 1 1 1 3/8 9/4 5 assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() (  1) p 2 4 1 4 4 sqrt(1 + ) p 2 p +  1/4 2 3 18 ( 1) sqrt(2) gamma () 4  3  3 1 1 1 3/8 9/4 5 %i assoc_legendre_p(, , ) gamma() (  1) p 2 4 1 4 4 sqrt(1 + ) p 2 p +  1/4 2 3 18 ( 1) sqrt(2) gamma () 4 83/85 tests passed. The following 2 problems failed: (60 52)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1109113&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050125 00:14:39

Bugs item #1079521, was opened at 20041205 12:19 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1079521&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 2 Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: freeof (exp, exp(x)) yields true Initial Comment: freeof (exp, exp(x)) => true although freeof (sin, sin(x)) => false (kill (f), freeof (f, f(x))) => false Exponentials are always stored as %e^something, so freeof (%e, exp(x)) => false Dunno what is the right policy here. Substituting %e for exp in the argument list (which is consistent with the otherwise universal policy of substituting %e^x for exp(x)) won't work right: freeof (exp, exp(x)) hypothetically => false (OK) freeof (exp, %e*2) hypothetically => false (OOPS) Another answer is to not substitute %e^x for exp(x) but that will have widespread effects (to put it mildly).  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20050124 17:14 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Based on comments from Stavros, I'm closing this as a nonbug; the observed effect is a consequence of simplification. I'll add something about the effect of simplification to the freeof description.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20050124 15:42 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 This is not a freeof issue. It is not that exponentials are "stored as" %e^x, it is that the expression exp(x) is simplified to %e^x. The function 'exp' just never appears in a simplified expression. Similarly sin(%i) simplifies to %i*sinh(1). Surely you don't expect freeof to "find" the sin in %i*sinh(1) or to "find" the exp in 2^n (which is precisely equivalent to exp(n*log(2)). Of course, Maxima is not completely consistent about when it canonicalizes and when it does not (even when this is feasible). For example, by default it does *not* simplify exp(n*log(2)) to 2^n, but to %e^(log(2)*n); it does not simplify n! to gamma(n+1); etc.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1079521&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050124 22:42:17

Bugs item #1079521, was opened at 20041205 14:19 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1079521&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 2 Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: freeof (exp, exp(x)) yields true Initial Comment: freeof (exp, exp(x)) => true although freeof (sin, sin(x)) => false (kill (f), freeof (f, f(x))) => false Exponentials are always stored as %e^something, so freeof (%e, exp(x)) => false Dunno what is the right policy here. Substituting %e for exp in the argument list (which is consistent with the otherwise universal policy of substituting %e^x for exp(x)) won't work right: freeof (exp, exp(x)) hypothetically => false (OK) freeof (exp, %e*2) hypothetically => false (OOPS) Another answer is to not substitute %e^x for exp(x) but that will have widespread effects (to put it mildly).  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20050124 17:42 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 This is not a freeof issue. It is not that exponentials are "stored as" %e^x, it is that the expression exp(x) is simplified to %e^x. The function 'exp' just never appears in a simplified expression. Similarly sin(%i) simplifies to %i*sinh(1). Surely you don't expect freeof to "find" the sin in %i*sinh(1) or to "find" the exp in 2^n (which is precisely equivalent to exp(n*log(2)). Of course, Maxima is not completely consistent about when it canonicalizes and when it does not (even when this is feasible). For example, by default it does *not* simplify exp(n*log(2)) to 2^n, but to %e^(log(2)*n); it does not simplify n! to gamma(n+1); etc.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1079521&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20050124 22:29:12

Bugs item #1094108, was opened at 20050101 12:04 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1094108&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Maxima crashed Dell 8400 Initial Comment: I installed Maxima on two dells for trial runs: Dell 8400 (P4, 3.2GHz) and Dell Latitude C610 (P3, 1.2 GHz). All installed tests cases run and my simple tests also work. Maxima is granted with full network access in firewall setting. And Maxima is brought up in the startup as installed. Dell 8400 has multiple user setup. When the machine is idled, sometime the machine will freeze. When the user switched, the machine always froze. I uninstalled Maxima on Dell 8400. Everything else function properly.  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20050124 17:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 What version of Maxima (use bug_report() for configuration information)? What operating system and version on each computer? What firewall? What exactly do you mean by "when the user switched"?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1094108&group_id=4933 