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}
(16) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 







1

2
(4) 
3

4
(1) 
5
(1) 
6
(2) 
7
(4) 
8
(9) 
9
(4) 
10
(1) 
11
(1) 
12
(6) 
13
(5) 
14
(1) 
15

16

17
(8) 
18

19
(1) 
20
(1) 
21

22
(2) 
23
(1) 
24
(1) 
25
(3) 
26
(1) 
27
(4) 
28
(4) 
29
(6) 
30
(3) 
31
(2) 





From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080329 21:40:13

Bugs item #1921102, was opened at 20080320 15:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1921102&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core Group: Includes proposed fix Status: Closed Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Crategus (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Test files dont work Initial Comment: I installed now Maxima 5.14.0 with GCL 2.6.6 ANSI on my MS Windows XP system. After installation the test files dont work. I get the error "unexpected end of #(input stream ..." reading the files in test mode. On my system the following extra EOF test in the routine TYIRAW works: (defun tyiraw (&optional (stream *standardinput*) eofoption) ;; added this extra EOF test, because test files generate ;; unexpected end of inputstream on my system (Windows XP, GCL 2.6.6) (when (eq (peekchar nil stream nil eofoption) eofoption) (returnfrom tyiraw eofoption) ) ;; this is the original unchanged code (let ((ch (readcharnohang stream nil eofoption))) (if ch ch (progn (when (and *promptonreadhang* *readhangprompt*) (princ *readhangprompt*) (forceoutput *standardoutput*) ) (readchar stream nil eofoption) ) ) ) ) I had the same problem with the versions 5.13.0 und 5.12.0 of Maxima on my system. Perhaps the bug is in the routine TESTBATCH. A reason may be the different EOF values used in Maxima at different places. Crategus  >Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080329 22:40 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES Thank you very much for your answer. I have installed GCL 2.6.7 too. But this Lisp Version don't work on my Windows XP system. The compiler gives the error message: "undefined __flsbuf ... " loading the binaries. Maxima starts, but the function READCHAR don't work. So I will wait for a next version (I need a executable, I have no experience to build the compiler.) Crategus  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080329 22:11 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Closing this report as "won't fix". I'm pretty sure the problem is due to a bug in GCL (specifically the function READCHARNOHANG). This bug does not appear in Maxima + GCL 2.6.8pre + Windows XP. Dunno if Maxima + GCL 2.6.7 + Windows is OK. You might consider updating your version of GCL. Unfortunately, I don't know if GCL 2.6.8pre builds from CVS, and as for 2.6.7, I don't know if Maxima + GCL 2.6.7 + Windows XP runs correctly. The maxima5.xx.yy.exe installers which you can download from Sourceforge (https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4933) are built with 2.6.8pre if I am not mistaken.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1921102&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080329 21:14:10

Bugs item #1924837, was opened at 20080324 20:25 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1924837&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core  Integration Group: Includes proposed fix >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integration error Initial Comment: This prob has been discussed in ML.Here it its link: http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2008/010566.html Hi,all.I use Maxima 5.14.0 ,and find an error that I think is a bug of Maxima.Hope to FIX IT. Here it is: (%i1) integrate(cos(a*x)/(1+x^2),x,0,inf); Is a positive, negative, or zero? zero; Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Error in PROGN [or a callee]: Caught fatal error [memory may be damaged] Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. The following is a fix from Robert Dodier: It appears that the bug originates from a MRAT expression which some function isn't prepared to handle ... The following patch fixes this bug. Not sure yet what other effect it might have.  src/defint.lisp 17 Feb 2008 20:54:22 0000 1.55 +++ src/defint.lisp 23 Mar 2008 15:59:15 0000 @@ 1015,7 +1015,7 @@ (eq ($sign (m+ (deg (setq nn* ($imagpart (caddr term)))) 2.)) '$neg))  (cond ((eq ($asksign (ratcoef nn* var)) '$pos) + (cond ((eq ($asksign (ratdisrep (ratcoef nn* var))) '$pos) (setq *updn t)) (t (setq *updn nil))) term)  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080329 15:14 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Patch applied & committed as src/defint.lisp r1.56. Closing this report as fixed.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1924837&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080329 21:11:50

Bugs item #1921102, was opened at 20080320 08:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1921102&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core Group: Includes proposed fix >Status: Closed >Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 >Private: No Submitted By: Crategus (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Test files dont work Initial Comment: I installed now Maxima 5.14.0 with GCL 2.6.6 ANSI on my MS Windows XP system. After installation the test files dont work. I get the error "unexpected end of #(input stream ..." reading the files in test mode. On my system the following extra EOF test in the routine TYIRAW works: (defun tyiraw (&optional (stream *standardinput*) eofoption) ;; added this extra EOF test, because test files generate ;; unexpected end of inputstream on my system (Windows XP, GCL 2.6.6) (when (eq (peekchar nil stream nil eofoption) eofoption) (returnfrom tyiraw eofoption) ) ;; this is the original unchanged code (let ((ch (readcharnohang stream nil eofoption))) (if ch ch (progn (when (and *promptonreadhang* *readhangprompt*) (princ *readhangprompt*) (forceoutput *standardoutput*) ) (readchar stream nil eofoption) ) ) ) ) I had the same problem with the versions 5.13.0 und 5.12.0 of Maxima on my system. Perhaps the bug is in the routine TESTBATCH. A reason may be the different EOF values used in Maxima at different places. Crategus  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080329 15:11 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Closing this report as "won't fix". I'm pretty sure the problem is due to a bug in GCL (specifically the function READCHARNOHANG). This bug does not appear in Maxima + GCL 2.6.8pre + Windows XP. Dunno if Maxima + GCL 2.6.7 + Windows is OK. You might consider updating your version of GCL. Unfortunately, I don't know if GCL 2.6.8pre builds from CVS, and as for 2.6.7, I don't know if Maxima + GCL 2.6.7 + Windows XP runs correctly. The maxima5.xx.yy.exe installers which you can download from Sourceforge (https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4933) are built with 2.6.8pre if I am not mistaken.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1921102&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080329 21:05:44

Bugs item #1920177, was opened at 20080319 22:07 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1920177&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core Group: Includes proposed fix Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Crategus (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Problems with the bessel functions Initial Comment: There are several problems with the bessel functions. The problems I have found can be divided in the following categories: 1. Inconsistent use of the internal arrays $besselarray, $yarray and $iarray. Example: Restart Maxima and Enter bessel_y(2,1.0). You get an Lisp error. Try first bessel_y(2,1.0) and then repeat bessel_y(2,1.0). Now you get the correct result 1.65...  %i * 3,30... Try bessel_j(2,1.0), you get 0.1149...  %i*2.8142... Next enter bessel_y(2,1.0), you get a Lisp error. The reason for the problems is that the routine bessely uses the global array $YARRAY to store values, but uses also the array $BESSELARRAY to calculate the answer. This is an error. I think the best is to eliminate the use of the global arrays completly. 2. Problematic roundoff errors: Try bessel_j(2,1.0). The result is 0,114903...  %i* 2.8142... e17. The correct result is pure real. The problem is the use of the transformation j[n]=exp(n*%pi*%i)*j[n](x) in the code which produce a small imaginary part. This is a roundoff error for an integer order. In the case of non integer values the imaginary part is correct. So you can not cut off the imaginary part in general. Here is a piece of code which will return an answer which is pure real when the order is an integer (I started to rewrite the code, introduced a function besselj and eliminated the use of the global arrays): (if (integerp order) (if (evenp order) (aref jvals n) ( (aref jvals n)) ) (let ((v (* (cis (* order pi)) (aref jvals n)))) (simplifya `((mplus) ,(realpart v) ((mtimes) $%i ,(imagpart v))) nil ) ) ) 3. Wrong mathematic: Try bessel_j(2.5,1,0). You get 0.04949... Correct is the result 2.8763... * %i Or bessel_j(3,2.0). You get 0,128943... Correct is the result 0.128943... The calculation of the bessel function j[n](x) for real argument x and negativ order n as (realpart (hankel1 order arg)) is not correct. The correct result can be obtained with the formula j[n](x) = 1/2 * (H1[n](x) + H2[n](x)). I tried the following code: (let ((result (* 0.5d0 (+ (hankel1 order arg) (hankel2 order arg))))) (complexify result) ; Problem: you get a small imaginary part ;in the case of a real result (like Problem 2) ; An alternative with a function fpround which round the result ; so that a small imaginary part will vanish ; ; (simplifya ; `((mplus) ; ,(fpround (realpart result) 14) ; ((mtimes) ; ,(fpround (imagpart result) 14) ; $%i ; ) ; ) ; nil ; ) ) This is the definition of the function fpround: (defun fpround (x &optional (digits 1)) (let ((fac (expt 10 digits))) (/ (round x (/ 1 fac)) (float fac)) ) ) I have redesigned a lot of the code for the bessel functions but the work is not finished. Is the work interesting for the project? I use GCL 2.6.6 on Windows XP for programing. Crategus  >Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080329 22:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES Next I have added a diff between the orginal and the changed file. Question: Is it possible to attach at once more than one file to a message? Crategus File Added: diff.txt  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080329 22:00 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have put all changes of the code for the Bessel functions in the orginal file bessel.lisp which is distributed with Maxima 5.14.0 and attached this file to this message. I have tested the code with the testsuite and the values of the mytest_bessel.mac. Crategus File Added: besselchanged.lisp  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080329 01:35 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES Thank you very much for your answer. I have redesigned the following routines: simpbesselj (old name besseljsimp) besselj (old name $bessel) simpbessely (old name besselysimp) bessely simpbesseli (old name besselisimp) besseli simpbesselk (old name besselksimp) besselk The new routines are: $hankel_1 simphankel1 $hankel_2 simphankel2 If have further introduced the nouns %hankel_1 und %hankel_2. I would prefer to call the functions $hankel_1 and $hankel_2 and not bessel_hankel. The reason is that these functions are well known as Hankel functions. Because I have collected the routines in a new file it would be a good idea to do the changes in the orginal file bessel.lisp. Than it easier to produce a diff for you. I do this the next time. But first, I would like to have a second look at the global arrays $besselarray, $yarray and $iarray. I think it is not so easy to manage these global arrays in a consistent and predictable way for the user. One reason is, that the code for the numerical calculations use the other functions too (i.e. to calculate bessely we need besselj or for the calculation of besseli we need besselj and besselk). So $besselarray can be destroyed when calculating besseli. It might be possible to prevent this effect by introducing a global flag which signals the internal call of one of the routines. A second point is, that we often dont't use the numerical slatec routines directly. In this case it is necessary to do a lot of extra calculations to obtain the values for the arrays. Perhaps it is useful to decide to fill the global arrays only for the case when we can use the values of the slatec routines directly. This is possible for positive order and argument or positiv order and complex argument of the Bessel functions. Further, an additional flag could be introduced to switch the filling of the arrays on and off. It is also to decide what we do when the user calculate a new value for a Bessel function and the calculation don't fill the global array. In this case, the user may be confused by the fact that the global arrays still hold old values. But for which order and argument? For this case it may be helpful to invalidate the array every time we calculate a new value or to store additionally the order and argument for which the values in the global array are calculated. All these problems with the global arrays arise because of the extension of the routines to negative arguments and orders. In my opinion it would be the best to use the concept of the global arrays no longer. The code becomes much more complicated and the benefit for the user might be small. Crategus  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20080328 17:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO First, thank you very much for the fixes to the Bessel routines. I'm sure we all want the routines to be correct! Second, about $besselarray. I see the documentation for that is gone, but I think the intent for besselarray was to let the user have access to all the computed values, since some algorithms end up computing all the intermediate orders to get to the desired order. We need to think if this should go away or not. Third, it would certainly help me a lot if you actually produced a diff between your new code and the existing code. Right now, I have to go look at every single function in different places to figure out what's changed. Trying to minimize the changes would help. I know this is a lot of work for you too. Just identifying which function you actually changed would help a lot too. About the specific changes you mention in the comments. No problem with changing besselxsimp to simpbesselx. (I think most of the code uses simpbesselx, but that's too messy for my tastes.) Extending the range is very, very good. Not sure about the special tests for pure real or imaginary answers. Need to look at that some more. Definitions for Hankel functions are good. May want to name them bessel_hankel_1 to be consistent with other Bessel functions. Certainly want to add some properties like derivatives, but that can wait. All in all, I would very much like to take in your very nice changes.  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080327 17:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have tested the Bessel functions with the numerical data attached to this message. For the tests I used a function TEST_BESSEL(value, result, digits) which allow to compare the value with the result within the specified digits. Crategus File Added: mytest_bessel.mac  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080327 17:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have finished a first redesign of the code for the numerical calculation of the Bessel functions. I have extended the calculation to or changed parts of the calculation to negative orders and arguments. Perhaps the ideas and the code are interesting for the project. I have added the code to this message. A short description of the changes can be find in the header of the file. Crategus File Added: besselnew.lisp  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080323 18:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have added to this posting the code for a routine besselj which handles the above problems. The global array $BESSELARRAY is not used. Futher, I added numerical test values for the the special cases in the code. I used Maxima 5.14.0 and GCL 2.6.6 ANSI to compile the code. The testsuite runs with no unexpected errors found. 22 of the 29 numerical tests I have added give the result within a presision of 16 digits. 7 results have a precision of about 14 to 15 digits. Perhaps, the code is interesting enough for further investigation of the numerical evaluation of the Bessel functions. Crategus File Added: besselj.lisp  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1920177&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080329 21:00:21

Bugs item #1920177, was opened at 20080319 22:07 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1920177&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core Group: Includes proposed fix Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Crategus (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Problems with the bessel functions Initial Comment: There are several problems with the bessel functions. The problems I have found can be divided in the following categories: 1. Inconsistent use of the internal arrays $besselarray, $yarray and $iarray. Example: Restart Maxima and Enter bessel_y(2,1.0). You get an Lisp error. Try first bessel_y(2,1.0) and then repeat bessel_y(2,1.0). Now you get the correct result 1.65...  %i * 3,30... Try bessel_j(2,1.0), you get 0.1149...  %i*2.8142... Next enter bessel_y(2,1.0), you get a Lisp error. The reason for the problems is that the routine bessely uses the global array $YARRAY to store values, but uses also the array $BESSELARRAY to calculate the answer. This is an error. I think the best is to eliminate the use of the global arrays completly. 2. Problematic roundoff errors: Try bessel_j(2,1.0). The result is 0,114903...  %i* 2.8142... e17. The correct result is pure real. The problem is the use of the transformation j[n]=exp(n*%pi*%i)*j[n](x) in the code which produce a small imaginary part. This is a roundoff error for an integer order. In the case of non integer values the imaginary part is correct. So you can not cut off the imaginary part in general. Here is a piece of code which will return an answer which is pure real when the order is an integer (I started to rewrite the code, introduced a function besselj and eliminated the use of the global arrays): (if (integerp order) (if (evenp order) (aref jvals n) ( (aref jvals n)) ) (let ((v (* (cis (* order pi)) (aref jvals n)))) (simplifya `((mplus) ,(realpart v) ((mtimes) $%i ,(imagpart v))) nil ) ) ) 3. Wrong mathematic: Try bessel_j(2.5,1,0). You get 0.04949... Correct is the result 2.8763... * %i Or bessel_j(3,2.0). You get 0,128943... Correct is the result 0.128943... The calculation of the bessel function j[n](x) for real argument x and negativ order n as (realpart (hankel1 order arg)) is not correct. The correct result can be obtained with the formula j[n](x) = 1/2 * (H1[n](x) + H2[n](x)). I tried the following code: (let ((result (* 0.5d0 (+ (hankel1 order arg) (hankel2 order arg))))) (complexify result) ; Problem: you get a small imaginary part ;in the case of a real result (like Problem 2) ; An alternative with a function fpround which round the result ; so that a small imaginary part will vanish ; ; (simplifya ; `((mplus) ; ,(fpround (realpart result) 14) ; ((mtimes) ; ,(fpround (imagpart result) 14) ; $%i ; ) ; ) ; nil ; ) ) This is the definition of the function fpround: (defun fpround (x &optional (digits 1)) (let ((fac (expt 10 digits))) (/ (round x (/ 1 fac)) (float fac)) ) ) I have redesigned a lot of the code for the bessel functions but the work is not finished. Is the work interesting for the project? I use GCL 2.6.6 on Windows XP for programing. Crategus  >Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080329 22:00 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have put all changes of the code for the Bessel functions in the orginal file bessel.lisp which is distributed with Maxima 5.14.0 and attached this file to this message. I have tested the code with the testsuite and the values of the mytest_bessel.mac. Crategus File Added: besselchanged.lisp  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080329 01:35 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES Thank you very much for your answer. I have redesigned the following routines: simpbesselj (old name besseljsimp) besselj (old name $bessel) simpbessely (old name besselysimp) bessely simpbesseli (old name besselisimp) besseli simpbesselk (old name besselksimp) besselk The new routines are: $hankel_1 simphankel1 $hankel_2 simphankel2 If have further introduced the nouns %hankel_1 und %hankel_2. I would prefer to call the functions $hankel_1 and $hankel_2 and not bessel_hankel. The reason is that these functions are well known as Hankel functions. Because I have collected the routines in a new file it would be a good idea to do the changes in the orginal file bessel.lisp. Than it easier to produce a diff for you. I do this the next time. But first, I would like to have a second look at the global arrays $besselarray, $yarray and $iarray. I think it is not so easy to manage these global arrays in a consistent and predictable way for the user. One reason is, that the code for the numerical calculations use the other functions too (i.e. to calculate bessely we need besselj or for the calculation of besseli we need besselj and besselk). So $besselarray can be destroyed when calculating besseli. It might be possible to prevent this effect by introducing a global flag which signals the internal call of one of the routines. A second point is, that we often dont't use the numerical slatec routines directly. In this case it is necessary to do a lot of extra calculations to obtain the values for the arrays. Perhaps it is useful to decide to fill the global arrays only for the case when we can use the values of the slatec routines directly. This is possible for positive order and argument or positiv order and complex argument of the Bessel functions. Further, an additional flag could be introduced to switch the filling of the arrays on and off. It is also to decide what we do when the user calculate a new value for a Bessel function and the calculation don't fill the global array. In this case, the user may be confused by the fact that the global arrays still hold old values. But for which order and argument? For this case it may be helpful to invalidate the array every time we calculate a new value or to store additionally the order and argument for which the values in the global array are calculated. All these problems with the global arrays arise because of the extension of the routines to negative arguments and orders. In my opinion it would be the best to use the concept of the global arrays no longer. The code becomes much more complicated and the benefit for the user might be small. Crategus  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20080328 17:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO First, thank you very much for the fixes to the Bessel routines. I'm sure we all want the routines to be correct! Second, about $besselarray. I see the documentation for that is gone, but I think the intent for besselarray was to let the user have access to all the computed values, since some algorithms end up computing all the intermediate orders to get to the desired order. We need to think if this should go away or not. Third, it would certainly help me a lot if you actually produced a diff between your new code and the existing code. Right now, I have to go look at every single function in different places to figure out what's changed. Trying to minimize the changes would help. I know this is a lot of work for you too. Just identifying which function you actually changed would help a lot too. About the specific changes you mention in the comments. No problem with changing besselxsimp to simpbesselx. (I think most of the code uses simpbesselx, but that's too messy for my tastes.) Extending the range is very, very good. Not sure about the special tests for pure real or imaginary answers. Need to look at that some more. Definitions for Hankel functions are good. May want to name them bessel_hankel_1 to be consistent with other Bessel functions. Certainly want to add some properties like derivatives, but that can wait. All in all, I would very much like to take in your very nice changes.  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080327 17:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have tested the Bessel functions with the numerical data attached to this message. For the tests I used a function TEST_BESSEL(value, result, digits) which allow to compare the value with the result within the specified digits. Crategus File Added: mytest_bessel.mac  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080327 17:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have finished a first redesign of the code for the numerical calculation of the Bessel functions. I have extended the calculation to or changed parts of the calculation to negative orders and arguments. Perhaps the ideas and the code are interesting for the project. I have added the code to this message. A short description of the changes can be find in the header of the file. Crategus File Added: besselnew.lisp  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080323 18:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have added to this posting the code for a routine besselj which handles the above problems. The global array $BESSELARRAY is not used. Futher, I added numerical test values for the the special cases in the code. I used Maxima 5.14.0 and GCL 2.6.6 ANSI to compile the code. The testsuite runs with no unexpected errors found. 22 of the 29 numerical tests I have added give the result within a presision of 16 digits. 7 results have a precision of about 14 to 15 digits. Perhaps, the code is interesting enough for further investigation of the numerical evaluation of the Bessel functions. Crategus File Added: besselj.lisp  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1920177&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080329 00:35:05

Bugs item #1920177, was opened at 20080319 22:07 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1920177&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core Group: Includes proposed fix Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Crategus (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Problems with the bessel functions Initial Comment: There are several problems with the bessel functions. The problems I have found can be divided in the following categories: 1. Inconsistent use of the internal arrays $besselarray, $yarray and $iarray. Example: Restart Maxima and Enter bessel_y(2,1.0). You get an Lisp error. Try first bessel_y(2,1.0) and then repeat bessel_y(2,1.0). Now you get the correct result 1.65...  %i * 3,30... Try bessel_j(2,1.0), you get 0.1149...  %i*2.8142... Next enter bessel_y(2,1.0), you get a Lisp error. The reason for the problems is that the routine bessely uses the global array $YARRAY to store values, but uses also the array $BESSELARRAY to calculate the answer. This is an error. I think the best is to eliminate the use of the global arrays completly. 2. Problematic roundoff errors: Try bessel_j(2,1.0). The result is 0,114903...  %i* 2.8142... e17. The correct result is pure real. The problem is the use of the transformation j[n]=exp(n*%pi*%i)*j[n](x) in the code which produce a small imaginary part. This is a roundoff error for an integer order. In the case of non integer values the imaginary part is correct. So you can not cut off the imaginary part in general. Here is a piece of code which will return an answer which is pure real when the order is an integer (I started to rewrite the code, introduced a function besselj and eliminated the use of the global arrays): (if (integerp order) (if (evenp order) (aref jvals n) ( (aref jvals n)) ) (let ((v (* (cis (* order pi)) (aref jvals n)))) (simplifya `((mplus) ,(realpart v) ((mtimes) $%i ,(imagpart v))) nil ) ) ) 3. Wrong mathematic: Try bessel_j(2.5,1,0). You get 0.04949... Correct is the result 2.8763... * %i Or bessel_j(3,2.0). You get 0,128943... Correct is the result 0.128943... The calculation of the bessel function j[n](x) for real argument x and negativ order n as (realpart (hankel1 order arg)) is not correct. The correct result can be obtained with the formula j[n](x) = 1/2 * (H1[n](x) + H2[n](x)). I tried the following code: (let ((result (* 0.5d0 (+ (hankel1 order arg) (hankel2 order arg))))) (complexify result) ; Problem: you get a small imaginary part ;in the case of a real result (like Problem 2) ; An alternative with a function fpround which round the result ; so that a small imaginary part will vanish ; ; (simplifya ; `((mplus) ; ,(fpround (realpart result) 14) ; ((mtimes) ; ,(fpround (imagpart result) 14) ; $%i ; ) ; ) ; nil ; ) ) This is the definition of the function fpround: (defun fpround (x &optional (digits 1)) (let ((fac (expt 10 digits))) (/ (round x (/ 1 fac)) (float fac)) ) ) I have redesigned a lot of the code for the bessel functions but the work is not finished. Is the work interesting for the project? I use GCL 2.6.6 on Windows XP for programing. Crategus  >Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080329 01:35 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES Thank you very much for your answer. I have redesigned the following routines: simpbesselj (old name besseljsimp) besselj (old name $bessel) simpbessely (old name besselysimp) bessely simpbesseli (old name besselisimp) besseli simpbesselk (old name besselksimp) besselk The new routines are: $hankel_1 simphankel1 $hankel_2 simphankel2 If have further introduced the nouns %hankel_1 und %hankel_2. I would prefer to call the functions $hankel_1 and $hankel_2 and not bessel_hankel. The reason is that these functions are well known as Hankel functions. Because I have collected the routines in a new file it would be a good idea to do the changes in the orginal file bessel.lisp. Than it easier to produce a diff for you. I do this the next time. But first, I would like to have a second look at the global arrays $besselarray, $yarray and $iarray. I think it is not so easy to manage these global arrays in a consistent and predictable way for the user. One reason is, that the code for the numerical calculations use the other functions too (i.e. to calculate bessely we need besselj or for the calculation of besseli we need besselj and besselk). So $besselarray can be destroyed when calculating besseli. It might be possible to prevent this effect by introducing a global flag which signals the internal call of one of the routines. A second point is, that we often dont't use the numerical slatec routines directly. In this case it is necessary to do a lot of extra calculations to obtain the values for the arrays. Perhaps it is useful to decide to fill the global arrays only for the case when we can use the values of the slatec routines directly. This is possible for positive order and argument or positiv order and complex argument of the Bessel functions. Further, an additional flag could be introduced to switch the filling of the arrays on and off. It is also to decide what we do when the user calculate a new value for a Bessel function and the calculation don't fill the global array. In this case, the user may be confused by the fact that the global arrays still hold old values. But for which order and argument? For this case it may be helpful to invalidate the array every time we calculate a new value or to store additionally the order and argument for which the values in the global array are calculated. All these problems with the global arrays arise because of the extension of the routines to negative arguments and orders. In my opinion it would be the best to use the concept of the global arrays no longer. The code becomes much more complicated and the benefit for the user might be small. Crategus  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20080328 17:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO First, thank you very much for the fixes to the Bessel routines. I'm sure we all want the routines to be correct! Second, about $besselarray. I see the documentation for that is gone, but I think the intent for besselarray was to let the user have access to all the computed values, since some algorithms end up computing all the intermediate orders to get to the desired order. We need to think if this should go away or not. Third, it would certainly help me a lot if you actually produced a diff between your new code and the existing code. Right now, I have to go look at every single function in different places to figure out what's changed. Trying to minimize the changes would help. I know this is a lot of work for you too. Just identifying which function you actually changed would help a lot too. About the specific changes you mention in the comments. No problem with changing besselxsimp to simpbesselx. (I think most of the code uses simpbesselx, but that's too messy for my tastes.) Extending the range is very, very good. Not sure about the special tests for pure real or imaginary answers. Need to look at that some more. Definitions for Hankel functions are good. May want to name them bessel_hankel_1 to be consistent with other Bessel functions. Certainly want to add some properties like derivatives, but that can wait. All in all, I would very much like to take in your very nice changes.  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080327 17:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have tested the Bessel functions with the numerical data attached to this message. For the tests I used a function TEST_BESSEL(value, result, digits) which allow to compare the value with the result within the specified digits. Crategus File Added: mytest_bessel.mac  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080327 17:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have finished a first redesign of the code for the numerical calculation of the Bessel functions. I have extended the calculation to or changed parts of the calculation to negative orders and arguments. Perhaps the ideas and the code are interesting for the project. I have added the code to this message. A short description of the changes can be find in the header of the file. Crategus File Added: besselnew.lisp  Comment By: Crategus (crategus) Date: 20080323 18:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2039760 Originator: YES I have added to this posting the code for a routine besselj which handles the above problems. The global array $BESSELARRAY is not used. Futher, I added numerical test values for the the special cases in the code. I used Maxima 5.14.0 and GCL 2.6.6 ANSI to compile the code. The testsuite runs with no unexpected errors found. 22 of the 29 numerical tests I have added give the result within a presision of 16 digits. 7 results have a precision of about 14 to 15 digits. Perhaps, the code is interesting enough for further investigation of the numerical evaluation of the Bessel functions. Crategus File Added: besselj.lisp  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1920177&group_id=4933 