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}
(59) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 




1
(2) 
2
(1) 
3
(2) 
4
(3) 
5
(2) 
6
(2) 
7
(1) 
8
(1) 
9

10
(4) 
11
(3) 
12
(13) 
13
(2) 
14
(5) 
15

16
(1) 
17
(1) 
18

19

20
(3) 
21
(3) 
22
(1) 
23
(4) 
24
(1) 
25
(1) 
26

27

28
(1) 
29

30
(2) 


From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090405 19:27:17

Bugs item #2298099, was opened at 20081116 12:50 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2298099&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  Trigonometry >Group: Includes proposed fix Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: atan2 & logarc Initial Comment: When logarc is true, atan2 returns incorrect values in the left half plane: (%i5) logarc : true$ (%i6) e : atan2(y,x); (%o6) (%i*(log((%i*y)/x+1)log(1(%i*y)/x)))/2 Should be 3 %pi / 4, not  %pi / 4: (%i7) rectform(subst([y=1,x=1], e)); (%o7) %pi/4 Should be 3 %pi / 4, not  %pi / 4: (%i8) rectform(subst([y=1,x=1],e)); (%o8) %pi/4  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090405 21:27 Message: A more general definition of atan2(y,x) is:  %i * log((x+%i*y)/sqrt(x^2+y^2)) When we use this definition to transform atan2 for logarc:true, we will get the correct results. The changed code is ;($logarc (logarc '%atan (div y x))) ($logarc (mul 1 '$%i (simplify (list '(%log) (div (add x (mul '$%i y)) (power (add (mul x x) (mul y y)) (div 1 2))))))) The examples of this bug report would give the correct results. The testsuite has no problems: (%i13) logarc:true$ (%i16) atan2(x,y); (%o16) %i*log((y+%i*x)/sqrt(y^2+x^2)) (%i17) rectform(subst([y=1,x=1],atan2(y,x))); (%o17) 3*%pi/4 (%i18) rectform(subst([y=1,x=1],atan2(y,x))); (%o18) 3*%pi/4 Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20090302 16:50 Message: Perhaps this is really a bug in the logarc variable, or at least an inconsistency. atan2(y,x), logarc returns the expression you give above. But logarc(atan2(y,x)) > %i*log((x+%i*y)/sqrt(x^2+y^2)). This latter expression gives 3*%pi/4 for x=1, and y = 1. This is an example where log(x/y) is not equal to log(x)  log(y), I think.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2298099&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090404 22:34:19

Bugs item #2718162, was opened at 20090327 23:49 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2718162&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  Floating point Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: determinant of large numerical matrices cannot be calculated Initial Comment: I have a 16x16 complex numerical matrix of which I need to calculate the determinant. Maxima cannot do that. It seems to be caused by the fact that complex numbers are not automatically simplified. At least, if I restrict myself to a 3x3 submatrix, I get a value like the following: 0.022747564417433*(1.7248389564175436*10^4*(0.870910475262270.49144169957224*%i)1.7248389564175436*10^4*(0.75680249530793*%i0.65364362086361))*%i+0.0031407832308855*(0.0012492388804478*(0.90929742682568*%i0.41614683654714)*(0.870910475262270.49144169957224*%i)0.0012492388804478*(0.25405661252734*%i0.96718934941982)*(0.75680249530793*%i0.65364362086361))0.054917478527522*(7.1445168865760247*10^5*(0.25405661252734*%i0.96718934941982)7.1445168865760247*10^5*(0.90929742682568*%i0.41614683654714)) This is the output from a 3x3Matrix, so it is no wonder that it can't handle a 16x16matrix. I am not sure if that is really a bug, even though I cannot see a reason that such a behavior should be desirable.  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090404 17:34 Message: Save the function in a file "determinant_by_lu.lisp" . First, you must load("linearalgebra"); after that load("determinant_by_lu.lisp"). Depending on where you save the file determinant_by_lu.lisp, you may need to use a full pathname. That's all you need to do. Your method of doing :lisp(defun ... should work; maybe a paren got dropped when you tried it. (%i5) load("linearalgebra")$ (%i6) load("determinant_by_lu.lisp")$ (%i7) m : genmatrix(lambda([i,j], random(2.0) + random(2.0) * %i  (1.0 +1.0*%i)), 32,32)$ (%i8) determinant_by_lu(m, 'complexfield); (%o8) 8.2553048649832906*10^+13*%i+1.8063356113996187*10^+14 If you think this function is useful, I'll appended it to the linearalgebra package, update the user documentation, and append testing code  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090401 16:39 Message: Looks great! I know this is not a help forum, but I couldn't find anything, so I will still ask: How can I get wxmaxima to use this function? I tried just pasting it into the command line and I tried pasting it into the command line adding a :lisp in front, but both ways didn't work. Do I have to put it somehow into the source code?  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090331 07:13 Message: The function determinant is untested, so be careful: (%i28) m : genmatrix(lambda([i,j], random(2.0) + random(2.0) * %i  (1.0 + 1.0*%i)), 16,16)$ Evaluation took 0.0700 seconds (0.0700 elapsed) (%i29) determinant_by_lu(m, 'complexfield); Evaluation took 0.0200 seconds (0.0200 elapsed) (%o29) 47713.90022880313*%i6649.759043787237 (%i30) m : genmatrix(lambda([i,j], random(2.0) + random(2.0) * %i  (1.0 + 1.0*%i)), 32,32)$ Evaluation took 0.1100 seconds (0.1100 elapsed) (%i31) determinant_by_lu(m, 'complexfield); Evaluation took 0.0600 seconds (0.0600 elapsed) (%o31) 3.2540557083226812*10^+14*%i+3.663603682227415*10^+14 (%i34) m : genmatrix(lambda([i,j], random(2.0) + random(2.0) * %i  (1.0 + 1.0*%i)), 64,64)$ Evaluation took 0.4200 seconds (0.4200 elapsed) (%i35) determinant_by_lu(m, 'complexfield); Evaluation took 0.3400 seconds (0.3400 elapsed) (%o35) 5.100608386826365*10^+37*%i1.9076027933472101*10^+37 (defun $determinant_by_lu (m &optional (fldname '$generalring)) ($require_square_matrix m "$first" "$determinant_by_lu") (let* ((fld ($require_ring fldname "$second" "$determinant_by_lu")) (acc (funcall (mringmultid fld))) (fmult (mringmult fld)) (fconvert (mringmaximatomring fld)) (n ($first ($matrix_size m))) (perm) (d)) (setq m ($lu_factor m fldname)) (setq perm ($second m)) (setq m ($first m)) (loop for i from 1 to n do (setq d (funcall fconvert (melem m perm i i))) ;;(if ($matrixp d) (setq d ($determinant_by_lu d fld))) (setq acc (funcall fmult acc d))) (bbsort1 (cdr perm)) (funcall (mringmringtomaxima fld) (if sign (funcall (mringnegate fld) acc) acc))))  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090328 14:58 Message: (%i6) M:matrix([0.5+1.5*%i,0.67*%i],[1,2]); (%o6) matrix([1.5*%i+0.5,0.67*%i],[1,2]) (%i7) determinant(M); (%o7) 2*(1.5*%i+0.5)0.67*%i (%i8) determinant(M),ratmx:true; `rat' replaced 0.5 by 1/2 = 0.5 `rat' replaced 1.5 by 3/2 = 1.5 `rat' replaced 0.67 by 67/100 = 0.67 (%o8) (233*%i+100)/100 (%i9) rectform(determinant(M)); (%o9) 2.33*%i+1.0 For floating point numbers, rectform might be the better workaround. However, both workarounds only help, beautify the output, they do not help the basic problem that for larger matrices the computing time grows quickly towards infinity. I would guess that to resolve the problem, the internal handling of floating point complex numbers has to be changed so that they are added up right away internally and not kept as one long equation until we simplify it with rectform or ratmx. Btw: already for a real 16x16 matrix, it takes maxima a few minutes to calculate the determinant, while mathematica needs a few milliseconds for exactly the same matrix. Maybe a more efficient algorithm for the calculation of a numerical determinant could also be useful.  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090328 07:03 Message: I agree that this behavior is undesirable. For a possible workaround, try setting ratmx to true: (%i3) m : matrix([4+%i, 5],[1%i,7]); (%o3) matrix([%i+4,5],[1%i,7]) (%i4) determinant(m), ratmx : false; (%o4) 7*(%i+4)5*(1%i) (%i5) determinant(m), ratmx : true; (%o5) 12*%i+23  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090327 23:51 Message: I forgot to include: working on ubuntu 8.04 and maxima 0.7.1 supplied in the ubuntu universe repositories.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2718162&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090404 21:29:49

Bugs item #2732176, was opened at 20090405 01:29 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by xen740 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2732176&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  Polynomials Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: xen (xen740) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: function elem return wrong result Initial Comment: elem([2],(x1x2)^2,[x1,x2]) get 2*e1^26*e2 right result e1^24*e2 versions 5.13 and 5.18  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2732176&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090404 00:06:01

Bugs item #2729193, was opened at 20090404 00:06 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2729193&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: Installation Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Trojan in there Initial Comment: 1. Tries to connect to the internet during installation  downloading trojan? 2. Program blocked by Windows Security during execution: Sloppy programming or trying to defeat protections?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2729193&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090403 22:30:08

Bugs item #2727846, was opened at 20090403 07:09 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2727846&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: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Blahota István (blahota) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: tan(%pi/2) is not correct (or just not nice?) Initial Comment: cot(0) is absolutely correct ("The number 0 isn't in the domain of cot  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true);"), but cot(%pi) and tan(%pi/2) say nothing, the result of float(tan(%pi/2)) is 8.165889364191922*10^15 (maxima 5.17.1)  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090403 22:30 Message: This seems to be an error which has been added in one of the last versions. I cannot confirm this on maxima 5.13.0: build_info()$ Maxima version: 5.13.0 Maxima build date: 9:20 12/12/2007 host type: i686pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 (%i8) cot(%pi); (%o8) Division by 0  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); (%i9) float(cot(%pi)); (%o9) Division by 0  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); (%i10) tan(%pi/2); (%010) Division by 0  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); (%i11) float(tan(%pi/2)); (%o11) Division by 0  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true);  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2727846&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090403 07:09:26

Bugs item #2727846, was opened at 20090403 09:09 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by blahota You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2727846&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: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Blahota István (blahota) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: tan(%pi/2) is not correct (or just not nice?) Initial Comment: cot(0) is absolutely correct ("The number 0 isn't in the domain of cot  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true);"), but cot(%pi) and tan(%pi/2) say nothing, the result of float(tan(%pi/2)) is 8.165889364191922*10^15 (maxima 5.17.1)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2727846&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090402 16:46:32

Bugs item #2727078, was opened at 20090402 18:46 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by theowoll You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2727078&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: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Theo Wollenleben (theowoll) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: wrong limit(log(gamma(x+1))/x,x,0) Initial Comment: (%i1) f(x):=log(gamma(x+1))/x$ (%i2) limit(f(x),x,0); (%o2) infinity (%i3) taylor(f(x),x,0,0); (%o3)/T/  %gamma + . . . taylor gives the correct answer.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2727078&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090401 21:39:41

Bugs item #2718162, was opened at 20090328 04:49 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2718162&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  Floating point Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: determinant of large numerical matrices cannot be calculated Initial Comment: I have a 16x16 complex numerical matrix of which I need to calculate the determinant. Maxima cannot do that. It seems to be caused by the fact that complex numbers are not automatically simplified. At least, if I restrict myself to a 3x3 submatrix, I get a value like the following: 0.022747564417433*(1.7248389564175436*10^4*(0.870910475262270.49144169957224*%i)1.7248389564175436*10^4*(0.75680249530793*%i0.65364362086361))*%i+0.0031407832308855*(0.0012492388804478*(0.90929742682568*%i0.41614683654714)*(0.870910475262270.49144169957224*%i)0.0012492388804478*(0.25405661252734*%i0.96718934941982)*(0.75680249530793*%i0.65364362086361))0.054917478527522*(7.1445168865760247*10^5*(0.25405661252734*%i0.96718934941982)7.1445168865760247*10^5*(0.90929742682568*%i0.41614683654714)) This is the output from a 3x3Matrix, so it is no wonder that it can't handle a 16x16matrix. I am not sure if that is really a bug, even though I cannot see a reason that such a behavior should be desirable.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090401 21:39 Message: Looks great! I know this is not a help forum, but I couldn't find anything, so I will still ask: How can I get wxmaxima to use this function? I tried just pasting it into the command line and I tried pasting it into the command line adding a :lisp in front, but both ways didn't work. Do I have to put it somehow into the source code?  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090331 12:13 Message: The function determinant is untested, so be careful: (%i28) m : genmatrix(lambda([i,j], random(2.0) + random(2.0) * %i  (1.0 + 1.0*%i)), 16,16)$ Evaluation took 0.0700 seconds (0.0700 elapsed) (%i29) determinant_by_lu(m, 'complexfield); Evaluation took 0.0200 seconds (0.0200 elapsed) (%o29) 47713.90022880313*%i6649.759043787237 (%i30) m : genmatrix(lambda([i,j], random(2.0) + random(2.0) * %i  (1.0 + 1.0*%i)), 32,32)$ Evaluation took 0.1100 seconds (0.1100 elapsed) (%i31) determinant_by_lu(m, 'complexfield); Evaluation took 0.0600 seconds (0.0600 elapsed) (%o31) 3.2540557083226812*10^+14*%i+3.663603682227415*10^+14 (%i34) m : genmatrix(lambda([i,j], random(2.0) + random(2.0) * %i  (1.0 + 1.0*%i)), 64,64)$ Evaluation took 0.4200 seconds (0.4200 elapsed) (%i35) determinant_by_lu(m, 'complexfield); Evaluation took 0.3400 seconds (0.3400 elapsed) (%o35) 5.100608386826365*10^+37*%i1.9076027933472101*10^+37 (defun $determinant_by_lu (m &optional (fldname '$generalring)) ($require_square_matrix m "$first" "$determinant_by_lu") (let* ((fld ($require_ring fldname "$second" "$determinant_by_lu")) (acc (funcall (mringmultid fld))) (fmult (mringmult fld)) (fconvert (mringmaximatomring fld)) (n ($first ($matrix_size m))) (perm) (d)) (setq m ($lu_factor m fldname)) (setq perm ($second m)) (setq m ($first m)) (loop for i from 1 to n do (setq d (funcall fconvert (melem m perm i i))) ;;(if ($matrixp d) (setq d ($determinant_by_lu d fld))) (setq acc (funcall fmult acc d))) (bbsort1 (cdr perm)) (funcall (mringmringtomaxima fld) (if sign (funcall (mringnegate fld) acc) acc))))  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090328 19:58 Message: (%i6) M:matrix([0.5+1.5*%i,0.67*%i],[1,2]); (%o6) matrix([1.5*%i+0.5,0.67*%i],[1,2]) (%i7) determinant(M); (%o7) 2*(1.5*%i+0.5)0.67*%i (%i8) determinant(M),ratmx:true; `rat' replaced 0.5 by 1/2 = 0.5 `rat' replaced 1.5 by 3/2 = 1.5 `rat' replaced 0.67 by 67/100 = 0.67 (%o8) (233*%i+100)/100 (%i9) rectform(determinant(M)); (%o9) 2.33*%i+1.0 For floating point numbers, rectform might be the better workaround. However, both workarounds only help, beautify the output, they do not help the basic problem that for larger matrices the computing time grows quickly towards infinity. I would guess that to resolve the problem, the internal handling of floating point complex numbers has to be changed so that they are added up right away internally and not kept as one long equation until we simplify it with rectform or ratmx. Btw: already for a real 16x16 matrix, it takes maxima a few minutes to calculate the determinant, while mathematica needs a few milliseconds for exactly the same matrix. Maybe a more efficient algorithm for the calculation of a numerical determinant could also be useful.  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090328 12:03 Message: I agree that this behavior is undesirable. For a possible workaround, try setting ratmx to true: (%i3) m : matrix([4+%i, 5],[1%i,7]); (%o3) matrix([%i+4,5],[1%i,7]) (%i4) determinant(m), ratmx : false; (%o4) 7*(%i+4)5*(1%i) (%i5) determinant(m), ratmx : true; (%o5) 12*%i+23  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090328 04:51 Message: I forgot to include: working on ubuntu 8.04 and maxima 0.7.1 supplied in the ubuntu universe repositories.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2718162&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090401 08:03:30

Bugs item #2724669, was opened at 20090401 08:03 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2724669&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: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Doesn't work correctly under MS Windows Vista Initial Comment: It doesn't start in command line mode. It starts in GUI mode (wxMaxima and XMaxima) but I can do nothing. I can put nothing in main window. If I put data e.g. for function factor, Maxima doesn't print any results.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2724669&group_id=4933 