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}
(14) 
_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 


1
(6) 
2
(5) 
3
(3) 
4
(2) 
5
(9) 
6
(3) 
7
(2) 
8
(2) 
9
(2) 
10
(4) 
11
(1) 
12
(12) 
13
(1) 
14
(1) 
15
(1) 
16
(1) 
17

18
(4) 
19
(1) 
20

21
(1) 
22
(1) 
23
(9) 
24
(2) 
25
(3) 
26
(1) 
27
(2) 
28
(1) 
29
(2) 
30





From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090608 08:59:11

Bugs item #2802805, was opened at 20090608 08:59 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802805&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: Problems with "residue" Initial Comment: Hi, Sorry for posting this message again, but I've just realised I didn't really "create" a bug report the first time. There seem to be a number of problems with the "residue" function, which may or may not be related, I don't really know. I've tried the following: (%i1) set_display('ascii)$ domain : complex $ declare(N, integer) $ H : 1 / (x*(xx0)*(1  x^N/y)) $ Problem #1: (%i5) residue(H, x, 0); y (%o5)   N x0 y  x x0 This should not depend on x, but it does... However the residue at x0 does not suffer from the same problem. (%i6) residue(H, x, x0); y (%o6)  N + 1 x0 y  x0 Problem #2: (%i8) declare(k, integer) $ Hk : x^(k1) / ((x  x0)*(1  x^N/y)) $ (%i10) declare(p, integer) $ residue(subst(k=+p, Hk), x, 0); residue(subst(k=p, Hk), x, 0); (%o11) 0 y (%o12)   p N + p x x0 y  x x0 Funnily enough, the result actually is different, depending on the sign affected to the parameter... Answer #2 suffers from problem #1, but both are wrong anyway. Problem #3: (%i13) residue(Hk, x, 0); (%o13) 0 I believe Maxima should ask if k is positive (which makes 0 a zero of order k1) or negative (which makes 0 a pole of order 1k). The residue is 0 only if k > 0. Problem #4: (%i13) kill(m1) $ kill(m2) $ residue(exp((m1m2)*T/RC) * 1/(x  x0) * x^(N*m2) * x/(x  1), x, 1); m1 : 1  a $ m2 : 1  b $ residue(exp((m1m2)*T/RC) * 1/(x  x0) * x^(N*m2) * x/(x  1), x, 1); (%o14) %e^(((m2m1)*T)/RC)/(x01) (%o15) 0 Why does the evaluation fails when some of the parameters are not "unknown" but have to be substitued with other expressions ?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802805&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090608 02:20:17

Bugs item #2166223, was opened at 20081014 14:14 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sfrobot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2166223&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: Closed Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: is(ind<1) gives error Initial Comment: is(ind<1) gives an error: The sign of ind is undefined  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); It should give <unknown>. Maxima 5.15.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net Using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.8 (aka GCL)  >Comment By: SourceForge Robot (sfrobot) Date: 20090608 02:20 Message: This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by the administrator of this Tracker).  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090524 13:18 Message: I do not think that we have a bug. The sign of the undeterminates IND and UND is undefined by design on the user level. Internally, when sign is called by limit routines the sign is declared to be PNZ (that is UNKOWN). This can be changed, but I do not see a benefit. Do I have missed something. Setting this bug report to pending. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2166223&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090607 23:53:18

Bugs item #814957, was opened at 20030930 10:17 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=814957&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: Xmaxima or other UI Group: None >Status: Pending >Resolution: Out of Date Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: No internet => No xMaxima Initial Comment: The windows compiled version of xMaxima refuses to work if a connection to internet is not available and working. A message saying "Error starting Maxima: Could not open a socket" is issued. After that the window xMaxima keeps mute, no prompt, no echo, nothing... If we have no Internet connection how can we keep working with Maxima through the xMaxima interface?  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090608 01:53 Message: Since the last posting there seems to be no more problems with this topic. Setting this bug report to out of date and pending. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Andrej Vodopivec (andrejv) Date: 20071007 21:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1179910 Originator: NO Fedora users should check if the file /etc/hosts contains the following line 127.0.0.1 localhost If it does not, then it needs to be added. Andrej  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071007 12:15 Message: Logged In: NO No... wxMaxima not normal start without internet, loopback interface always up ok. Only if ppp0 is down state wxMaxima can con connect to maxima.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071007 11:57 Message: Logged In: NO Linux home 2.6.22.757.fc6 #1 SMP Fri Sep 21 19:26:56 EDT 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux RedHat Fedore 7 last update 7 october 2007 If internet on then wxMaxima normal start and solve expression. Without internet wxMaxima notify "Not connected to maxima!". Console application maxima normal start and notmal solve without internet. If I right undestand wxMaxima need loopback 127.0.0.1 I'll send mail to fedore support about loopback. I hope, that developers wxMaxima make notify that wxMaxima need loopback if it seems.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071007 11:56 Message: Logged In: NO Linux home 2.6.22.757.fc6 #1 SMP Fri Sep 21 19:26:56 EDT 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux RedHat Fedore 7 last update 7 october 2007 If internet on then wxMaxima normal start and solve expression. Without internet wxMaxima notify "Not connected to maxima!". Console application maxima normal start and notmal solve without internet. If I right undestand wxMaxima need loopback 127.0.0.1 I'll send mail to fedore support about loopback. I hope, that developers wxMaxima make notify that wxMaxima need loopback if it seems.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071007 11:56 Message: Logged In: NO Linux home 2.6.22.757.fc6 #1 SMP Fri Sep 21 19:26:56 EDT 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux RedHat Fedore 7 last update 7 october 2007 If internet on then wxMaxima normal start and solve expression. Without internet wxMaxima notify "Not connected to maxima!". Console application maxima normal start and notmal solve without internet. If I right undestand wxMaxima need loopback 127.0.0.1 I'll send mail to fedore support about loopback. I hope, that developers wxMaxima make notify that wxMaxima need loopback if it seems.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060710 05:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 I wonder just how much network stuff needs to be active in order to enable the Maxima <> Xmaxima connection. It seems like just having the network stuff running with the loopback address (127.0.0.1) should be enough. Should be possible to test by shutting down any other interfaces and then trying to launch Xmaxima.  Comment By: Peter Ulrich Kruppa (pukruppa) Date: 20031111 16:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=778327 Some of my students have reported this problem to me, too, although everything on my laptop (WinXP Home Edition) works fine  even without internet connection. The only significant difference to their machines, I can think of, is that I once activated XP's compatibility mode for older programs (sorry, I don't know the exact words since I am running XP in german  do search for "compatibility" in the help menu and reinstall maxima with it). Just one possibility. Regards, Uli.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030930 20:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 An active Internet connection is not required by xMaxima. However, you must have sockets installed, working, and enabled, because Maxima uses them for interprocess communication. Firewall software may be closing off sockets, for example.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=814957&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090607 02:55:59

Bugs item #2802154, was opened at 20090605 21:33 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dvitanye You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802154&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: Dave Vitanye (dvitanye) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Problem with radcan simplifying an expression Initial Comment: I'm a new Maxima user, so I'm not sure this qualifies as a defect, but it just doesn't look right to me: For some particular specific functions X and Q: (%i4) radcan(X(Q(A/B),Q(A/B))); A (%o4)  B and then I would expect also: (%i5) radcan(X(Q(1/B),Q(1/B))); 1 (%o5)  B However the next result seems peculiar to me: (%i6) radcan(X(Q(A/1),Q(A/1))); A + 1 (%o6)  3 A  1 where I would have expected the result to be either A or A/1, right? Here are the two specific functions: (%i2) X(S,T) := (S*T*(2*S*T+S+T)2*S^(3/2)*T^(3/2)*(S+T+1)^(1/2)) / (S*T*(2*S*TST)+(ST)^2 + 2*S^(3/2)*T^(3/2)*(S+T+1)^(1/2)); 3/2 3/2 1/2 S T (2 S T + S + T)  2 S T (S + T + 1) (%o2) X(S, T) :=  2 3/2 3/2 1/2 S T (2 S T  S  T) + (S  T) + 2 S T (S + T + 1) (%i3) Q(x) := 4*x*(1+x)/(1x)^2; 4 x (1 + x) (%o3) Q(x) :=  2 (1  x) Here is the build information:  Maxima version: 5.18.1 Maxima build date: 20:57 4/19/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  Any comments or help are appreciated. Dave  Comment By: Dave Vitanye (dvitanye) Date: 20090606 19:55 Message: On further examination, I now believe the radcan result to be, in fact, correct. Surprising to me as a new user, but correct. So please consider this artifact to be withdrawn by the original author. Details follow: Since Q(x) blows up at x = 1 because of the term (1x)^2 in the denominator, there are two distinct regions to examine: x< 1 and x > 1. It Turns Out that the domain of interest to me for the parameter of function Q is x < 1. What I was attempting to confirm was the identity X(Q(x),Q(x)) = x. And, it turns out, this really IS true IF x < 1. The surprise to me is that, without my indicating any explicit assumptions, radcan appears to be making some implicit assumptions about the range of variable x. So, X(Q(1/B),Q(1/B)) simplifies to 1/B, apparently based on the determination that 1/B will be < 1 (ie. B is > 1 and not something like .1). And, X(Q(A),Q(A)) does NOT simplify to A, again based on the determination that A will be > 1 (ie. A is not something like .1). The curious result is that X(Q(A/B),Q(A/B)) simplifies to A/B, which is only true if A<B, but not true if A>B. How did radcan make the choice? If anyone more knowledgeable about how radcan is making these implicit assumtions about the range of variables being used could describe what's going on, I would be interested in understanding the details. Thanks.  Comment By: Dave Vitanye (dvitanye) Date: 20090605 21:45 Message: Oops  original post format not very readable; I am attempting to repost the content using the attached file mechanism. Dave  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802154&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090606 15:26:17

Bugs item #2801821, was opened at 20090605 12:31 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2801821&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  Limit Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(x*expintegral_ei(x),x,0) > Error Initial Comment: For this example we get an error: (%i5) limit(x*expintegral_ei(x),x,0); expintegral_ei: expintegral_ei(0) is undefined.  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); The error occurs in $gruntz, which calls $taylor. $taylor does not work for expintegral_ei(x) at the point zero and throws a Maxima error. This error is not catched by $gruntz. 1. The limit is known to be zero. Maxima should evaluate it. But hospital and $gruntz do not work. 2. $gruntz should catch the error in $taylor. The limit of this type of functions is important to get correct results for the definite integrals like, e. g. integrate(expintegral_ei(x),x,0,1). At the moment I have no idea to get the correct limit. I have not tried to improve $gruntz to catch the error. Perhaps someone who know $gruntz better can do it. Dieter Kaiser  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20090606 11:26 Message: Fixed in expintegral.lisp rev 1.19 and limit.lisp rev 1.72.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2801821&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090606 04:45:15

Bugs item #2802154, was opened at 20090605 21:33 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dvitanye You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802154&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: Dave Vitanye (dvitanye) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Problem with radcan simplifying an expression Initial Comment: I'm a new Maxima user, so I'm not sure this qualifies as a defect, but it just doesn't look right to me: For some particular specific functions X and Q: (%i4) radcan(X(Q(A/B),Q(A/B))); A (%o4)  B and then I would expect also: (%i5) radcan(X(Q(1/B),Q(1/B))); 1 (%o5)  B However the next result seems peculiar to me: (%i6) radcan(X(Q(A/1),Q(A/1))); A + 1 (%o6)  3 A  1 where I would have expected the result to be either A or A/1, right? Here are the two specific functions: (%i2) X(S,T) := (S*T*(2*S*T+S+T)2*S^(3/2)*T^(3/2)*(S+T+1)^(1/2)) / (S*T*(2*S*TST)+(ST)^2 + 2*S^(3/2)*T^(3/2)*(S+T+1)^(1/2)); 3/2 3/2 1/2 S T (2 S T + S + T)  2 S T (S + T + 1) (%o2) X(S, T) :=  2 3/2 3/2 1/2 S T (2 S T  S  T) + (S  T) + 2 S T (S + T + 1) (%i3) Q(x) := 4*x*(1+x)/(1x)^2; 4 x (1 + x) (%o3) Q(x) :=  2 (1  x) Here is the build information:  Maxima version: 5.18.1 Maxima build date: 20:57 4/19/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  Any comments or help are appreciated. Dave  Comment By: Dave Vitanye (dvitanye) Date: 20090605 21:45 Message: Oops  original post format not very readable; I am attempting to repost the content using the attached file mechanism. Dave  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802154&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090606 04:33:56

Bugs item #2802154, was opened at 20090605 21:33 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by dvitanye You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802154&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: Dave Vitanye (dvitanye) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Problem with radcan simplifying an expression Initial Comment: I'm a new Maxima user, so I'm not sure this qualifies as a defect, but it just doesn't look right to me: For some particular specific functions X and Q: (%i4) radcan(X(Q(A/B),Q(A/B))); A (%o4)  B and then I would expect also: (%i5) radcan(X(Q(1/B),Q(1/B))); 1 (%o5)  B However the next result seems peculiar to me: (%i6) radcan(X(Q(A/1),Q(A/1))); A + 1 (%o6)  3 A  1 where I would have expected the result to be either A or A/1, right? Here are the two specific functions: (%i2) X(S,T) := (S*T*(2*S*T+S+T)2*S^(3/2)*T^(3/2)*(S+T+1)^(1/2)) / (S*T*(2*S*TST)+(ST)^2 + 2*S^(3/2)*T^(3/2)*(S+T+1)^(1/2)); 3/2 3/2 1/2 S T (2 S T + S + T)  2 S T (S + T + 1) (%o2) X(S, T) :=  2 3/2 3/2 1/2 S T (2 S T  S  T) + (S  T) + 2 S T (S + T + 1) (%i3) Q(x) := 4*x*(1+x)/(1x)^2; 4 x (1 + x) (%o3) Q(x) :=  2 (1  x) Here is the build information:  Maxima version: 5.18.1 Maxima build date: 20:57 4/19/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  Any comments or help are appreciated. Dave  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802154&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090605 22:11:07

Bugs item #1119228, was opened at 20050209 12:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1119228&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  Limit Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 3 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(1/zeroa) Initial Comment: Maxima knows that limit(zeroa) = 0, but it doesn't know that limit(1/zeroa) = inf. Same is true for zerob ( but limit(1/zerob) = minf). (%i1) limit(1/zeroa); Division by 0 (%i2) limit(zeroa); (%o2) 0 Barton  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090606 00:11 Message: With revision 1.71 of limit.lisp the examples work: (%i6) limit(1/zeroa); (%o6) inf (%i7) limit(1/zerob); (%o7) minf Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1119228&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090605 22:09:16

Bugs item #1315837, was opened at 20051007 15:57 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1315837&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  Limit Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(?foo) Initial Comment: (%i46) limit(?foo); (%o46) 0 < Bogus (%i47) limit(true); (%o47) true < OK (%i48) limit(false); (%o48) lim(false,FOO,0) < OK, but goofy (%i49) 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: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090606 00:09 Message: With revision 1,71 the examples work: (%i3) limit(?foo); (%o3) ?foo (%i4) limit(true); (%o4) true (%i5) limit(false); (%o5) false Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1315837&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090605 21:50:09

Bugs item #2802006, was opened at 20090605 21:34 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802006&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: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate(1/(sqrt(x)+1), x, 0, 1); Initial Comment: Maxima can't solve this integral. I'm using maxima 5.17.1  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090605 21:49 Message: bug persists in the 5.18.1 release  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802006&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090605 21:36:09

Bugs item #2802006, was opened at 20090605 21:34 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802006&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: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate(1/(sqrt(x)+1), x, 0, 1); Initial Comment: Maxima can't solve this integral. I'm using maxima 5.17.1  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2802006&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090605 18:19:05

Bugs item #2801819, was opened at 20090605 16:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2801819&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: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: spurious Principal Value message Initial Comment: (%i1) assume(p > 0); (%o1) [p>0] OK: (%i4) integrate(exp(p * t^2),t,minf,inf); (%o4) sqrt(%pi)/sqrt(p) OK, but not a principle value: (%i5) integrate(exp(pp * t^2),t,minf,inf); Is pp positive, negative, or zero?pos; Principal Value (%o5) sqrt(%pi)/sqrt(pp)  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090605 18:18 Message: The difference between the two cases is in polesininterval. In the first case, there are no poles in the interval. In the second case, polesininterval thinks there are poles at minf and inf. Hence, maxima thinks we have a principal value integral.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2801819&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090605 16:31:15

Bugs item #2801821, was opened at 20090605 18:31 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2801821&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  Limit Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(x*expintegral_ei(x),x,0) > Error Initial Comment: For this example we get an error: (%i5) limit(x*expintegral_ei(x),x,0); expintegral_ei: expintegral_ei(0) is undefined.  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); The error occurs in $gruntz, which calls $taylor. $taylor does not work for expintegral_ei(x) at the point zero and throws a Maxima error. This error is not catched by $gruntz. 1. The limit is known to be zero. Maxima should evaluate it. But hospital and $gruntz do not work. 2. $gruntz should catch the error in $taylor. The limit of this type of functions is important to get correct results for the definite integrals like, e. g. integrate(expintegral_ei(x),x,0,1). At the moment I have no idea to get the correct limit. I have not tried to improve $gruntz to catch the error. Perhaps someone who know $gruntz better can do it. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2801821&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090605 16:18:50

Bugs item #2801819, was opened at 20090605 11:18 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2801819&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: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: spurious Principal Value message Initial Comment: (%i1) assume(p > 0); (%o1) [p>0] OK: (%i4) integrate(exp(p * t^2),t,minf,inf); (%o4) sqrt(%pi)/sqrt(p) OK, but not a principle value: (%i5) integrate(exp(pp * t^2),t,minf,inf); Is pp positive, negative, or zero?pos; Principal Value (%o5) sqrt(%pi)/sqrt(pp)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2801819&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090605 16:15:30

Bugs item #671602, was opened at 20030121 06:37 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=671602&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  Limit Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit x!/(x+a)! (a=0) Initial Comment: limit(x!/(x+a)!,x,inf)... is a pnz? zero; Divison by zero detected in SIGN: 1/a  an error Strangely enough, limit(gamma(x)/gamma(x+a),x,inf) (ask: a=0) gives the noun form.   >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090605 18:15 Message: The initial problem has gone. The limit works for the given examples and is correct. (%i2) declare(a,integer); (%o2) done (%i3) limit(x!/(x+a)!,x,inf); Is a positive, negative, or zero? p; (%o3) 0 (%i4) limit(x!/(x+a)!,x,inf); Is a positive, negative, or zero? n; (%o4) inf (%i5) limit(x!/(x+a)!,x,inf); Is a positive, negative, or zero? z; (%o5) 1 (%i8) limit(gamma(x)/gamma(x+a),x,inf); Is a positive, negative, or zero? p; (%o8) 0 (%i9) limit(gamma(x)/gamma(x+a),x,inf); Is a positive, negative, or zero? n; (%o9) inf (%i10) limit(gamma(x)/gamma(x+a),x,inf); Is a positive, negative, or zero? z; (%o10) 1 There is one issue. We have declared a to be an integer to avoid in the first call to limit the question "is 4/(4+a) an integer". This question is unnecessary and it doesn't matter what is answered. Perhaps we should open a new bug report. Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=671602&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090605 15:50:11

Bugs item #2795534, was opened at 20090522 20:46 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2795534&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: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate(expintegral_ei(x),x,0,1) gives result with TRUE Initial Comment: When we do the above integral we get an expression with the symbol TRUE in it: (%i14) integrate(expintegral_ei(x),x,0,1); (%o14) expintegral_ei(1)true%e The same for expintegral_ci and expintegral_chi: (%i16) integrate(expintegral_ci(x),x,0,1); (%o16) sin(1)+expintegral_ci(1)true (%i18) integrate(expintegral_chi(x),x,0,1); (%o18) sinh(1)+expintegral_chi(1)true Dieter Kaiser  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090605 17:50 Message: A check to the routine easysubs in defint.lisp has been added. We no longer get a result with the symbol T in it. But the integral does not work, because of a bug in limit. (%i1) integrate(expintegral_ei(x),x,0,1); expintegral_ei: expintegral_ei(0) is undefined.  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); Closing this bug report as fixed, because the initial problem in defint is solved. I will open a new bug report for the problem in limit. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090604 22:20 Message: Maxima should be able to solve integrals of the type given in this bug report. Other integrals like integrate(expintegral_ei(x),x,1/2,1) work well and give correct results. There are two problems. 1. A bug in defint Because of a bug in defint, we get the symbol true in the result. The reason is a missing check of the return value of noerrsub against T in the routine easysubs. This bug is easy to cure. 2. A bug in limit The limit of x*expintegral_ei(x) > 0 has to be calculated. The limit of expintegral_ei(x) > 0 is known by Maxima. Therefore Maxima should be able do get the correct answer, but Maxima tries to calculated the function at the value 0. This gives an error and the calculation stops. I am looking into the code to find a solution to the second problem too. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2795534&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090604 20:20:56

Bugs item #2795534, was opened at 20090522 20:46 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2795534&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: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate(expintegral_ei(x),x,0,1) gives result with TRUE Initial Comment: When we do the above integral we get an expression with the symbol TRUE in it: (%i14) integrate(expintegral_ei(x),x,0,1); (%o14) expintegral_ei(1)true%e The same for expintegral_ci and expintegral_chi: (%i16) integrate(expintegral_ci(x),x,0,1); (%o16) sin(1)+expintegral_ci(1)true (%i18) integrate(expintegral_chi(x),x,0,1); (%o18) sinh(1)+expintegral_chi(1)true Dieter Kaiser  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090604 22:20 Message: Maxima should be able to solve integrals of the type given in this bug report. Other integrals like integrate(expintegral_ei(x),x,1/2,1) work well and give correct results. There are two problems. 1. A bug in defint Because of a bug in defint, we get the symbol true in the result. The reason is a missing check of the return value of noerrsub against T in the routine easysubs. This bug is easy to cure. 2. A bug in limit The limit of x*expintegral_ei(x) > 0 has to be calculated. The limit of expintegral_ei(x) > 0 is known by Maxima. Therefore Maxima should be able do get the correct answer, but Maxima tries to calculated the function at the value 0. This gives an error and the calculation stops. I am looking into the code to find a solution to the second problem too. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2795534&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090604 19:42:49

Bugs item #938134, was opened at 20040419 22:00 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=938134&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  Complex Group: Includes proposed fix >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: diff(realpart) bogus Initial Comment: declare(z,complex)$ diff(realpart(z),z) => realpart(1) ?!?! Realpart is nowhere differentiable!  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090604 21:42 Message: The rule for differentiating realpart and imagpart has been removed as suggested. Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090510 16:00 Message: In the routine sdiff the following code is implemented: ((member (caar e) '(%realpart %imagpart) :test #'eq) (list (cons (caar e) nil) (sdiff (cadr e) x))) That is diff(realpart(f(x)),x) > realpart(diff (f(x),x)) and diff(imagpart(f(x),x)) > imagpart(diff(f(x),x)). Both rules are wrong. The code should be simply cut out. The testsuite has no problems and does not depend on this code. These are some results, when we cut out the code: (%i1) declare(z,complex)$ A noun form for a complex symbol: (%i2) diff(realpart(z),z); (%o2) 'diff('realpart(z),z,1) (%i3) diff(imagpart(z),z); (%o3) 'diff('imagpart(z),z,1) For a real symbol realpart and imagpart simplify and we get: (%i4) diff(realpart(x),x); (%o4) 1 (%i5) diff(imagpart(x),x); (%o5) 0 An unknown function does not simplify and we get again the noun forms: (%i6) diff(realpart(f(x)),x); (%o6) 'diff('realpart(f(x)),x,1) (%i7) diff(imagpart(f(x)),x); (%o7) 'diff('imagpart(f(x)),x,1) Maxima knows how to simplify the sin function and we get: (%i8) diff(realpart(sin(x)),x); (%o8) cos(x) (%i9) diff(imagpart(sin(x)),x); (%o9) 0 I think we should cut out the above code. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060729 08:14 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Observed in 5.9.3cvs.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=938134&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090603 20:21:29

Bugs item #612212, was opened at 20020920 19:43 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=612212&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: Xmaxima or other UI Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 1 Private: No Submitted By: Mike Clarkson (mikeclarkson) Assigned to: Mike Clarkson (mikeclarkson) Summary: Bug#155264: maxima: Funny dialog buttons Initial Comment: forwarded 155264 maxima@... thanks Greetings! Final xmaxima bug report: Take care, Neilen <nmarais@...> writes: > Package: maxima > Version: 5.617 > Severity: minor > > If you click on the "Apply" or "Save Preference" buttons in the preferences > dialog (file>preferences), a text cursor appears, allowing you to edit the > lable of the button. This is a little confusing, particularly since it does > not provide any visual feedback that the button has been clicked. > > Thanks > Neilen > >  System Information > Debian Release: 3.0 > Architecture: i386 > Kernel: Linux stoomtrein 2.4.18 #6 Sat Jun 29 10:00:18 SAST 2002 i686 > Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE= >  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090603 22:21 Message: I would like to suggest to comment out the code which generates the two buttons, which do not work. The remaining buttons "Apply and Quit" and "Cancel" work and do what is needed. These are the lines, which have to be commented out in Browser.tcl: # $win insert insert [mc " Apply "] "click raised" # $win insert insert [mc " Save Preferences "] "save raised" With this change we could close this bug report. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070602 21:36 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO A curiosity. Reducing priority accordingly.  Comment By: Mike Clarkson (mikeclarkson) Date: 20020920 19:44 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=31254 Bug confirmed. On the medium term todo list.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=612212&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090603 10:46:50

Bugs item #1984464, was opened at 20080604 07:59 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1984464&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: Documentation Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 3 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Barton Willis (willisbl) Summary: No documentation for topoly or topoly_solver Initial Comment: The packages topoly and topoly_solver have no documentation. In <http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2008/011921.html>;, Barton Willis suggested reporting this as a bug and volunteered to be the assignee. Thank you very much for that, Barton. I'll appear as anonymous, but I'm Dan Hatton <vi5u0maxima@...>.  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090603 05:46 Message: There is documentation, but it's hard to find: under windows, file:///C:/Program%20Files/Maxima5.18.1/share/maxima/5.18.1/share/contrib/topolyuserdoc.html Of course, this location is nonideal.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1984464&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090603 10:43:39

Bugs item #2800183, was opened at 20090602 14:50 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2800183&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  Complex Group: None >Status: Pending >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Doesn't Correctly simplify for X in the following: Initial Comment: %e^(%i*%x) = 1 solve for x yields x = %i * log(1) which is correct...but log(1) should simplify to %i*%pi when multiplied * %i should yield %pi.... It really isn't correct though as x could equal %pi, 3*%pi, 5*%pi, 7*pi etc... I am not a mathematician or anything..but I think this is right...get a mathmatician to concur...I am basing this on Euler's Identity btw.  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090603 05:43 Message: Use the function rectform: (%i3) %e^(%i*%x) = 1$ (%i4) solve(%,%x); (%o4) [%x=%i*log(1)] (%i5) rectform(%); (%o5) [%x=%pi] Also, ...  3 * %pi,  %pi, %pi, 3 * %pi are solutions to %e^(%i*%x) = 1. If log is multivalued, %o4 contains all the solutions, but %o5 doesn't. I don't see a bug here, so I'm changing the status to invalid; if I've missed something, let me know.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2800183&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090602 23:07:30

Bugs item #1899352, was opened at 20080222 06:47 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1899352&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  Assume Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Alex Ghitza (aghitza) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate asks about (y1)(y+1) after assume(y^2>1) Initial Comment: Here is the problematic session: Maxima 5.13.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net Using Lisp CLISP 2.41 (20061013) Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. This is a development version of Maxima. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) assume(y^2>1); 2 (%o1) [y > 1] (%i2) integrate(log(x^2+y^2),x,0.0001414,1.); `rat' replaced 0.9998586 by 7071/7072 = .9998585972850679 `rat' replaced 1.414E4 by 81/572843 = 1.413999996508642E4 `rat' replaced 0.9998586 by 7071/7072 = .9998585972850679 `rat' replaced 0.9998586 by 7071/7072 = .9998585972850679 `rat' replaced 1.414E4 by 81/572843 = 1.413999996508642E4 `rat' replaced 0.9998586 by 7071/7072 = .9998585972850679 `rat' replaced 0.9998586 by 7071/7072 = .9998585972850679 `rat' replaced 1.414E4 by 81/572843 = 1.413999996508642E4 `rat' replaced 0.9998586 by 7071/7072 = .9998585972850679 Is (y  1) (y + 1) positive, negative, or zero? positive; 2 2 Is y + x + 2 x + 1 positive or negative? positive; 2 2 1 (%o2)  1.414E4 log(1.0 y + 1.999396E8) + log(y + 1) + 2 atan() y y 1.414E4  2.0 atan() y  1.9997172 y (%i3)  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090603 01:07 Message: After the last changes to the code of rectform and absarg in rpart.lisp we now get: (%i4) integrate(log(x^2+y^2),x,0,1); (%o4) log(y^2+1)+2*atan(1/y)*y2 We no longer get a question for this type of integral. The example above has a different lower value for the integral and works too: (%i5) integrate(log(x^2+y^2),x,0.0001414,1); (%o5) 1.414E4*log(1.0*y^2+1.999396E8)+log(y^2+1)+2*atan(1/y)*y 2.0*atan(1.414E4/y)*y1.9997172 Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20080222 15:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Note that is((y1)*(y+1)>0) returns unknown. If you say assume(y>1), integrate doesn't ask about that anymore. But it still asks about y^2+x^2+2*x+1. It should know that x > 0 and y > 0 here.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20080222 15:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Note that is((y1)*(y+1)>0) returns unknown. If you say assume(y>1), integrate doesn't ask about that anymore. But it still asks about y^2+x^2+2*x+1. It should know that x > 0 and y > 0 here.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1899352&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090602 23:02:21

Bugs item #1731624, was opened at 20070605 21:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1731624&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: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Sanjoy Mahajan (sm324) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: asked about sign of yx in integral containing only z Initial Comment: Entering integrate(exp(sqrt(z^3)),z,0,1); produces Is yx positive or negative? But there is no yx in the integrand. I thought maxima might have an implicit rule about z = x + iy, so I tried the integral using q as the variable instead of z, but the same question was asked. Maxima version: 5.12.0 Maxima build date: 3:18 5/23/2007 host type: i686pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.7 (it's the Ubuntu 5.12.01ubuntu1 package from the upcoming release of Ubuntu recompiled on my Ubuntu feisty system).  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090603 01:02 Message: After some changes to the code of rectform and friends we now get: (%i2) integrate(exp(sqrt(z^3)),z,0,1); (%o2) (sqrt(3)*%i+1)*(gamma(2/3)gamma_incomplete(2/3,1))/3 We do not get any questions and a result in terms of the gamma_incomplete function. The further examples don't problems too: (%i1) integrate(exp(sqrt(x)),x,1,5); (%o1) 2*(sqrt(5)1)*%e^sqrt(5) (%i3) limit(x*(1x*log(11/x)),x,0); (%o3) 0 Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071212 16:43 Message: Logged In: NO This is likely the same problem, but I am not completely sure, so I decided to add this as a comment here rather than open a new bug report. Entering: limit(x*(1  x*log(1 + 1/x)),x,0); produces Is x + 1 positive or negative? There are two things wrong with this 1) When x > 0 then x+1 is clearly always positive. Presumably the intended question was "Is x positive or negative?" 2) The value of the limit does not depend on the sign of x, it is 0 in either case. Maxima version: 5.13.99rc1 Maxima build date: 21:11 12/3/2007 host type: i686redhatlinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: CLISP lispimplementationversion: 2.39 (20060716) (built on boulder.infotility.com [192.168.0.23]) (standard rpm from Sourceforge)  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070717 22:10 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Another example (from the mailing list): integrate( exp( sqrt(x) ), x, 1, 5); => Is yx positive or negative?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1731624&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090602 19:50:20

Bugs item #2800183, was opened at 20090602 19:50 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2800183&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  Complex Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Doesn't Correctly simplify for X in the following: Initial Comment: %e^(%i*%x) = 1 solve for x yields x = %i * log(1) which is correct...but log(1) should simplify to %i*%pi when multiplied * %i should yield %pi.... It really isn't correct though as x could equal %pi, 3*%pi, 5*%pi, 7*pi etc... I am not a mathematician or anything..but I think this is right...get a mathmatician to concur...I am basing this on Euler's Identity btw.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2800183&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090602 16:34:16

Bugs item #2800086, was opened at 20090602 16:34 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2800086&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: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: echelon problem Initial Comment: Maxima version: 5.18.1 Maxima build date: 20:57 4/19/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 I typed in the following commands in Maxima: (%i1) A:matrix([1,2,2,b1],[2,2,3,b2],[3,4,5,b3]); [ 1 2 2 b1 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 2 2 3 b2 ] [ ] [ 3 4 5 b3 ] (%i2) echelon(A); [ 1 2 2 b1 ] [ ] [ 1 b2  2 b1 ] (%o2) [ 0 1    ] [ 2 2 ] [ ] [ 0 0 0 1 ] (%i3) algebraic:true; (%o3) true (%i4) echelon(A); [ 1 2 2 b1 ] [ ] [ 1 b2  2 b1 ] (%o4) [ 0 1    ] [ 2 2 ] [ ] [ 0 0 0 1 ] But shouldn't the result be: [ 1 2 2 b1 ] [ ] [ 1 b2  2 b1 ] [ 0 1    ] [ 2 2 ] [ ] [ 0 0 0 b2  b3 + b1 ]  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2800086&group_id=4933 