You can subscribe to this list here.
2002 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}
(67) 
_{Jul}
(61) 
_{Aug}
(49) 
_{Sep}
(43) 
_{Oct}
(59) 
_{Nov}
(24) 
_{Dec}
(18) 

2003 
_{Jan}
(34) 
_{Feb}
(35) 
_{Mar}
(72) 
_{Apr}
(42) 
_{May}
(46) 
_{Jun}
(15) 
_{Jul}
(64) 
_{Aug}
(62) 
_{Sep}
(22) 
_{Oct}
(41) 
_{Nov}
(57) 
_{Dec}
(56) 
2004 
_{Jan}
(48) 
_{Feb}
(47) 
_{Mar}
(33) 
_{Apr}
(39) 
_{May}
(6) 
_{Jun}
(17) 
_{Jul}
(19) 
_{Aug}
(10) 
_{Sep}
(14) 
_{Oct}
(74) 
_{Nov}
(80) 
_{Dec}
(22) 
2005 
_{Jan}
(43) 
_{Feb}
(33) 
_{Mar}
(52) 
_{Apr}
(74) 
_{May}
(32) 
_{Jun}
(58) 
_{Jul}
(18) 
_{Aug}
(41) 
_{Sep}
(71) 
_{Oct}
(28) 
_{Nov}
(65) 
_{Dec}
(68) 
2006 
_{Jan}
(54) 
_{Feb}
(37) 
_{Mar}
(82) 
_{Apr}
(211) 
_{May}
(69) 
_{Jun}
(75) 
_{Jul}
(279) 
_{Aug}
(139) 
_{Sep}
(135) 
_{Oct}
(58) 
_{Nov}
(81) 
_{Dec}
(78) 
2007 
_{Jan}
(141) 
_{Feb}
(134) 
_{Mar}
(65) 
_{Apr}
(49) 
_{May}
(61) 
_{Jun}
(90) 
_{Jul}
(72) 
_{Aug}
(53) 
_{Sep}
(86) 
_{Oct}
(61) 
_{Nov}
(62) 
_{Dec}
(101) 
2008 
_{Jan}
(100) 
_{Feb}
(66) 
_{Mar}
(76) 
_{Apr}
(95) 
_{May}
(77) 
_{Jun}
(93) 
_{Jul}
(103) 
_{Aug}
(76) 
_{Sep}
(42) 
_{Oct}
(55) 
_{Nov}
(44) 
_{Dec}
(75) 
2009 
_{Jan}
(103) 
_{Feb}
(105) 
_{Mar}
(121) 
_{Apr}
(59) 
_{May}
(103) 
_{Jun}
(82) 
_{Jul}
(67) 
_{Aug}
(76) 
_{Sep}
(85) 
_{Oct}
(75) 
_{Nov}
(181) 
_{Dec}
(133) 
2010 
_{Jan}
(107) 
_{Feb}
(116) 
_{Mar}
(145) 
_{Apr}
(89) 
_{May}
(138) 
_{Jun}
(85) 
_{Jul}
(82) 
_{Aug}
(111) 
_{Sep}
(70) 
_{Oct}
(83) 
_{Nov}
(60) 
_{Dec}
(16) 
2011 
_{Jan}
(61) 
_{Feb}
(16) 
_{Mar}
(52) 
_{Apr}
(41) 
_{May}
(34) 
_{Jun}
(41) 
_{Jul}
(57) 
_{Aug}
(73) 
_{Sep}
(21) 
_{Oct}
(45) 
_{Nov}
(50) 
_{Dec}
(28) 
2012 
_{Jan}
(70) 
_{Feb}
(36) 
_{Mar}
(71) 
_{Apr}
(29) 
_{May}
(48) 
_{Jun}
(61) 
_{Jul}
(44) 
_{Aug}
(54) 
_{Sep}
(20) 
_{Oct}
(28) 
_{Nov}
(41) 
_{Dec}
(137) 
2013 
_{Jan}
(62) 
_{Feb}
(55) 
_{Mar}
(31) 
_{Apr}
(23) 
_{May}
(54) 
_{Jun}
(54) 
_{Jul}
(90) 
_{Aug}
(46) 
_{Sep}
(38) 
_{Oct}
(60) 
_{Nov}
(92) 
_{Dec}
(17) 
2014 
_{Jan}
(62) 
_{Feb}
(35) 
_{Mar}
(72) 
_{Apr}
(30) 
_{May}
(97) 
_{Jun}
(81) 
_{Jul}
(63) 
_{Aug}
(64) 
_{Sep}
(28) 
_{Oct}
(45) 
_{Nov}
(48) 
_{Dec}
(109) 
2015 
_{Jan}
(106) 
_{Feb}
(36) 
_{Mar}
(65) 
_{Apr}
(63) 
_{May}
(95) 
_{Jun}
(56) 
_{Jul}
(48) 
_{Aug}
(8) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 







1

2
(1) 
3

4

5

6
(5) 
7
(1) 
8
(1) 
9
(1) 
10
(2) 
11
(3) 
12
(10) 
13

14

15
(2) 
16
(1) 
17

18
(2) 
19
(8) 
20
(4) 
21
(4) 
22

23

24
(9) 
25
(2) 
26
(2) 
27

28
(3) 
29
(6) 
30
(6) 
31
(3) 





From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090831 23:22:15

Bugs item #2846949, was opened at 20090829 20:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846949&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: Pending >Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: ilt(expr,s,t) cannot calculate some difficult expressions Initial Comment: Hi! I use wxmaxima 0.8.2 in Ubuntu. I have some rational function and I need to do inverse Laplace transformation. So I use ilt(), but it can't solve this. I tryed maxima 5.10.0 and 5.13.0, the result is the same (see in the file). In 5.17.1 there is a Lisp error when I'm trying to evaluate. But when I try a slightly changed function (see in the file too) it can be solved. Mathcad 14 for Windows could even solve this with the first function. The result is in the file. But when I did a Laplace transformation with the result, mathcad gave me a very difficult solvation, and using wxmaxima I got a very simple result. Both of these results weren't the primary functon. So I don't know the right answer but I really need to!  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090901 01:22 Message: Setting this bug report as pending and works for me. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090830 12:50 Message: I think the matter is in the complexity of calculations. I tried to find roots of the denominator, and the answer is so much difficult. I don't know which algorithm Maxima is using for ilt, but I know one, it includes search of denominator's roots. May be it's too complicated to do the transformation, I suppose, the answer is giant. I should talk with my lecturer and discuss some parameters of my transfer function. Thank you very much anyway :)  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090829 21:33 Message: I have tried the examples with current Maxima 5.19post. Furthermore I have reformulated the integral a bit. It is equivalent, but looks simpler. You are right we get no solution for the following expression: (%i2) ilt(1/(s^2*(1 + a*s)*(1 + b*s)*(1 + c*s) + d*s),s,t); (%o2) 'ilt((a*b*c*s^3+((b+a)*c+a*b)*s^2+(c+b+a)*s+1) /(d*(a*b*c*s^4+((b+a)*c+a*b)*s^3+(c+b+a)*s^2+s+d)),s,t) +1/d As you have observed, we get a solution, when we omit the extra term +d*s: (%i3) ilt(1/(s^2*(1 + a*s)*(1 + b*s)*(1 + c*s)),s,t); (%o3) c^3*%e^(t/c)/(c^2+(ba)*c+a*b)b^3*%e^(t/b)/((ba)*cb^2+a*b) +a^3*%e^(t/a)/((ba)*ca*b+a^2)+tcba The Laplace transformation gives the original expression: (%i4) laplace(%,t,s); (%o4) c^3/((c^2+(ba)*c+a*b)*(s+1/c))b^3/(((ba)*cb^2+a*b)*(s+1/b)) +a^3/(((ba)*ca*b+a^2)*(s+1/a))c/sb/s a/s+1/s^2 We can see it more easy, when we factor the last result: (%i5) factor(%); (%o5) 1/(s^2*(a*s+1)*(b*s+1)*(c*s+1)) I can not see a bug. I have tried the first integral with Wolfram alpha, but get no solution too. Perhaps you can post the expected answer for the first integral. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846949&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090831 23:17:54

Bugs item #2844127, was opened at 20090825 11:26 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2844127&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate throws bind stack overflow error Initial Comment: Hello, I just wanted to validate the following: If eq1: F(x) = integrate( f(x,t), t, u(x), v(x) ); then eq2: diff( eq1, x); should give diff( F(x), x ) = f(x, u) * diff( u, x) + f(x,v) * diff( v, x) + integrate( diff( f(x,t) , x), t, u(x) , v(x) ) but eq1: F(x) = integrate( f(x,t), t, u(x), v(x) ); results in the following error: Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Error in PROGN [or a callee]: Bind stack overflow. Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. Maxima version: 5.19.1 Maxima build date: 11:22 8/17/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 Thanks Norbert  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090901 01:17 Message: The problem is no longer present in the current CVS version and the last revision Maxima 5.19.2. Two bugs have been fixed. Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2844127&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090831 23:13:36

Bugs item #2842060, was opened at 20090821 18:24 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2842060&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: Fixed Priority: 4 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: unsimplified result from integrate Initial Comment: (%i14) :lisp(defun $pprint (x) (let ((*printcircle* nil)) (print x))); (%i26) integrate(1/x/sqrt(x^21),x); (%o26) asin(1/abs(x)) The mabs expression is missing a simp flag (%i27) pprint(%); ((MTIMES SIMP) 1 ((%ASIN SIMP) ((MEXPT SIMP) ((MABS) $X) 1))) (%o27) asin(1/abs(x)) After another simplification, all is well (%i28) expand(%,0,0); (%o28) asin(1/abs(x)) (%i29) pprint(%); ((MTIMES SIMP) 1 ((%ASIN SIMP) ((MEXPT SIMP) ((MABS SIMP) $X) 1))) (%o29) asin(1/abs(x))  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090901 01:13 Message: The suggested fix has been committed. The following example now simplifies correctly: (%i5) assume(x>0)$ (%i6) integrate(1/x/sqrt(x^21),x); (%o6) asin(1/x) Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090831 01:51 Message: The problem is in the routine den1den1 in the file irinte.lisp. This is the improved code to get a correct simplified expression: (defun den1den1 (c b a x) (let ((exp2 (add (mul b x) a a)) ; exp2 = b*x+2*a (exp3 (inv (simplify (list '(mabs) x))))) ; exp3 = 1/abs(x) ... Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2842060&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090830 23:51:34

Bugs item #2842060, was opened at 20090821 18:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2842060&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: 4 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: unsimplified result from integrate Initial Comment: (%i14) :lisp(defun $pprint (x) (let ((*printcircle* nil)) (print x))); (%i26) integrate(1/x/sqrt(x^21),x); (%o26) asin(1/abs(x)) The mabs expression is missing a simp flag (%i27) pprint(%); ((MTIMES SIMP) 1 ((%ASIN SIMP) ((MEXPT SIMP) ((MABS) $X) 1))) (%o27) asin(1/abs(x)) After another simplification, all is well (%i28) expand(%,0,0); (%o28) asin(1/abs(x)) (%i29) pprint(%); ((MTIMES SIMP) 1 ((%ASIN SIMP) ((MEXPT SIMP) ((MABS SIMP) $X) 1))) (%o29) asin(1/abs(x))  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090831 01:51 Message: The problem is in the routine den1den1 in the file irinte.lisp. This is the improved code to get a correct simplified expression: (defun den1den1 (c b a x) (let ((exp2 (add (mul b x) a a)) ; exp2 = b*x+2*a (exp3 (inv (simplify (list '(mabs) x))))) ; exp3 = 1/abs(x) ... Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2842060&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090830 21:27:34

Bugs item #2847436, was opened at 20090830 21:27 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2847436&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(sqrt(t)*log(t)^(1/2),t,0,1) wrong sign Initial Comment: The following two integrals have the wrong sign: integrate(sqrt(t)*log(t)^(1/2),t,0,1) and integrate(sqrt(t)*log(t)^(1/2),t,0,1) It is interesting that Maxima is able to solve the more general type: (%i164) declare(s,noninteger); (%o164) done (%i165) expr:integrate(sqrt(t)*log(t)^s,t,0,1); (%o165) 3^(s1)*(1)^s*2^(s+1)*gamma_incomplete(s+1,0) For s=1/2 and s=1/2 we get the answers: (%i167) expr,s=1/2; (%o167) sqrt(2)*sqrt(%pi)*%i/(2*sqrt(3)) (%i168) expr,s=1/2; (%o168) sqrt(2)*sqrt(%pi)*%i/sqrt(3) Both solutions can be checked to be correct. Now we do it directly: (%i4) integrate(sqrt(t)*log(t)^(1/2),t,0,1); (%o4) %i*('limit(sqrt(2)*sqrt(%pi)*erf(sqrt(3)*sqrt(log(t))/sqrt(2))/3^(3/2) 2*t^(3/2)*sqrt(log(t))/3,t,0,plus)) We need an extra evaluation, but this is another problem: (%i5) %,nouns; (%o5) sqrt(2)*sqrt(%pi)*%i/3^(3/2) Now the integral for s=1/2: (%i6) integrate(sqrt(t)*log(t)^(1/2),t,0,1); (%o6) sqrt(2)*sqrt(%pi)*%i/sqrt(3) These solutions differ by the sign with the answers from above. I have checked it for a lot of other values for the parameter s. In all other cases the result of the integral and the more general solution are equal. Remark: The integral is divergent for s a negative integer. For these cases the gamma_incomplete function is not defined. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2847436&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090830 18:54:01

Bugs item #2847387, was opened at 20090830 20:53 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2847387&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: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: hgfred([3/2,b],[5/2],1) bogus Initial Comment: The general result for the definite integral integrate(sqrt(t)*(t+1)^b,t,0,1) is 2/3*hypergeometric([3/2,b],[5/2],1). The new hypergeometric code gives correct answers for b a positive integer: (%i128) 2/3*hypergeometric([3/2,1],[5/2],1); (%o128) 16/15 (%i129) 2/3*hypergeometric([3/2,2],[5/2],1); (%o129) 184/105 (%i130) 2/3*hypergeometric([3/2,3],[5/2],1); (%o130) 928/315 For negative integers I have tried hgfred. This is an example for b=3: (%i112) 2/3*hgfred([3/2,3],[5/2],1); (%o112) (12*((1/(2*(1("*"()))^3*(1))+5/(8*(1("*"()))^2*(1)^2) 15/(16*(1("*"()))*(1)^3) +15*atanh(sqrt(1))/(16*(1)^(7/2)) 3/(1("*"()))^4) *sqrt(1("*"())) 2*(1/(4*(1("*"()))^2*(1))+3/(8*(1("*"()))*(1)^2) 3*atanh(sqrt(1))/(8*(1)^(5/2)) 1/(1("*"()))^3) /sqrt(1("*"())) 3*(1/(4*(1("*"()))*(1))+atanh(sqrt(1))/(4*(2*sqrt(1))) 1/(2*(1("*"()))^2)) /(2*(2*sqrt(1("*"())))) 3*(atanh(sqrt(1))/(2*sqrt(1))1/(2*(1("*"())))) /(2*(1("*"()))^(5/2)) 15*(1atanh(sqrt(1))*sqrt(1))/(16*(1("*"()))^(7/2))) *(2*sqrt(1("*"())))*(1)^2 36*((1/(4*(1("*"()))^2*(1))+3/(8*(1("*"()))*(1)^2) 3*atanh(sqrt(1))/(8*(1)^(5/2)) 1/(1("*"()))^3) *sqrt(1("*"())) 3*(1/(4*(1("*"()))*(1))+atanh(sqrt(1))/(4*(2*sqrt(1))) 1/(2*(1("*"()))^2)) /(2*sqrt(1("*"()))) 3*(atanh(sqrt(1))/(2*sqrt(1))1/(2*(1("*"())))) /(4*(2*sqrt(1("*"())))) 3*(1atanh(sqrt(1))*sqrt(1))/(8*(1("*"()))^(5/2))) *sqrt(1("*"()))*(1)^2 +9*((1/(4*(1("*"()))*(1))+atanh(sqrt(1))/(4*(2*sqrt(1))) 1/(2*(1("*"()))^2)) *sqrt(1("*"())) (atanh(sqrt(1))/(2*sqrt(1))1/(2*(1("*"())))) /sqrt(1("*"())) (1atanh(sqrt(1))*sqrt(1))/(4*(2*sqrt(1("*"())))))*(1)^2 /sqrt(1("*"())) 48*((1/(4*(1("*"()))^2*(1))+3/(8*(1("*"()))*(1)^2) 3*atanh(sqrt(1))/(8*(1)^(5/2)) 1/(1("*"()))^3) *sqrt(1("*"())) 3*(1/(4*(1("*"()))*(1))+atanh(sqrt(1))/(4*(2*sqrt(1))) 1/(2*(1("*"()))^2)) /(2*sqrt(1("*"()))) 3*(atanh(sqrt(1))/(2*sqrt(1))1/(2*(1("*"())))) /(4*(2*sqrt(1("*"())))) 3*(1atanh(sqrt(1))*sqrt(1))/(8*(1("*"()))^(5/2))) *(2*sqrt(1("*"())))*1 +72*((1/(4*(1("*"()))*(1))+atanh(sqrt(1))/(4*(2*sqrt(1))) 1/(2*(1("*"()))^2)) *sqrt(1("*"())) (atanh(sqrt(1))/(2*sqrt(1))1/(2*(1("*"())))) /sqrt(1("*"())) (1atanh(sqrt(1))*sqrt(1))/(4*(2*sqrt(1("*"()))))) *sqrt(1("*"()))*1 +24*((1/(4*(1("*"()))*(1))+atanh(sqrt(1))/(4*(2*sqrt(1))) 1/(2*(1("*"()))^2)) *sqrt(1("*"())) (atanh(sqrt(1))/(2*sqrt(1))1/(2*(1("*"())))) /sqrt(1("*"())) (1atanh(sqrt(1))*sqrt(1))/(4*(2*sqrt(1("*"()))))) *(2*sqrt(1("*"())))) /3 The answer is not simplified and contains bad subexpressions. But if we do an extra expand we get the correct solution: (%i113) expand(%); (%o113) %pi/16 We have the same problem with other negative integers for b too. For a positive integer we get an answer in terms of the jacobi_p function which does not simplify to a rational number. There is a problem with b=2: (%i124) 2/3*hgfred([3/2,2],[5/2],1); (%o124) 16*jacobi_p(2,3/2,2*false5/2,3)/105 The answer contains the boolean value false. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2847387&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090830 14:24:34

Bugs item #711885, was opened at 20030329 19:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=711885&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: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Rootscontract with imaginaries fails Initial Comment: q: ((SQRT(3)*%I+1)^(3/2)4*%I)/SQRT(SQRT(3)*%I+1) rootscontract(q) gives the error "SIGN called on an imaginary argument". The error happens within SIMPEXPT, which is not prepared to deal with (1/(SQRT(3)+1))^(1/2) in the form ((MEXPT) ((MEXPT SIMP) ((MPLUS SIMP) 1 ((MEXPT SIMP) 3 ((RAT SIMP) 1 2))) 1) ((RAT) 1 2)) Maxima 5.9.0 GCL 2.5.0 Windows 2000  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090830 16:24 Message: I had a further look at the problem. First, I think that ((MEXPT SIMP) ((MPLUS SIMP) 1 ((MEXPT SIMP) 3 ((RAT SIMP) 1 2))) 1) is a valid expression. It is generated by (%i20) (1/(1+sqrt(3))),radexpand:false; (%o20) 1/(sqrt(3)+1) The problem is the function sign, which can not handle complex expressions. This function is called by simpexpt via the routine noneg to determine the sign of the base, when the power is a even rational number. I think we have two possibilities: 1. Do a workaround for the function rootscontract. In the routine rtcfixitup we set radexpand to true and resimplify the expression. Expressions like sqrt(3) will be simplified to sqrt(3)*%i and the routine sign has no longer a problem. The routine rootscontract will work correctly. 2. Strengthen the routine noneg in simp.lisp in general. If we replace the call to sign in noneg with a call to $csign complex expressions are handled more completely (defun noneg (p) (member ($csign p) '($pos $pz $zero))) With this change we no longer have a problem and get (%i23) (1/(1+sqrt(3))),radexpand:false; (%o23) 1/(sqrt(3)+1) (%i24) sqrt(%); (%o24) 1/sqrt(sqrt(3)+1) I have run the testsuite and the share_testsuite with this change and I have got no problems. Only seven examples in rtest_integrate.mac have a different, but equivalent result. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090830 02:30 Message: I think it is not a problem of rootscontract, but a problem of the simplifier. The following user input generates the error: (%i1) sqrt(1/(sqrt(3)+1)),radexpand:false; sign: argument cannot be imaginary; found sqrt( 3)  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); With radexpand set to false sqrt(3) does not simplify to sqrt(3)*%i but both expressions are valid user input. The problem is in simpepxt. In rootscontract the flag radexpand is set to false too. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060706 07:47 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Still present in 5.9.3cvs.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030815 05:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 cf bug report 789059 The reason I submitted separate bug reports is that in this case, it may be that rootscontract is passing a malformed expression to rootscontract, while in 789059, it is clearly a general simplifier problem.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=711885&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090830 10:50:42

Bugs item #2846949, was opened at 20090829 18:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846949&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: ilt(expr,s,t) cannot calculate some difficult expressions Initial Comment: Hi! I use wxmaxima 0.8.2 in Ubuntu. I have some rational function and I need to do inverse Laplace transformation. So I use ilt(), but it can't solve this. I tryed maxima 5.10.0 and 5.13.0, the result is the same (see in the file). In 5.17.1 there is a Lisp error when I'm trying to evaluate. But when I try a slightly changed function (see in the file too) it can be solved. Mathcad 14 for Windows could even solve this with the first function. The result is in the file. But when I did a Laplace transformation with the result, mathcad gave me a very difficult solvation, and using wxmaxima I got a very simple result. Both of these results weren't the primary functon. So I don't know the right answer but I really need to!  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20090830 10:50 Message: I think the matter is in the complexity of calculations. I tried to find roots of the denominator, and the answer is so much difficult. I don't know which algorithm Maxima is using for ilt, but I know one, it includes search of denominator's roots. May be it's too complicated to do the transformation, I suppose, the answer is giant. I should talk with my lecturer and discuss some parameters of my transfer function. Thank you very much anyway :)  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090829 19:33 Message: I have tried the examples with current Maxima 5.19post. Furthermore I have reformulated the integral a bit. It is equivalent, but looks simpler. You are right we get no solution for the following expression: (%i2) ilt(1/(s^2*(1 + a*s)*(1 + b*s)*(1 + c*s) + d*s),s,t); (%o2) 'ilt((a*b*c*s^3+((b+a)*c+a*b)*s^2+(c+b+a)*s+1) /(d*(a*b*c*s^4+((b+a)*c+a*b)*s^3+(c+b+a)*s^2+s+d)),s,t) +1/d As you have observed, we get a solution, when we omit the extra term +d*s: (%i3) ilt(1/(s^2*(1 + a*s)*(1 + b*s)*(1 + c*s)),s,t); (%o3) c^3*%e^(t/c)/(c^2+(ba)*c+a*b)b^3*%e^(t/b)/((ba)*cb^2+a*b) +a^3*%e^(t/a)/((ba)*ca*b+a^2)+tcba The Laplace transformation gives the original expression: (%i4) laplace(%,t,s); (%o4) c^3/((c^2+(ba)*c+a*b)*(s+1/c))b^3/(((ba)*cb^2+a*b)*(s+1/b)) +a^3/(((ba)*ca*b+a^2)*(s+1/a))c/sb/s a/s+1/s^2 We can see it more easy, when we factor the last result: (%i5) factor(%); (%o5) 1/(s^2*(a*s+1)*(b*s+1)*(c*s+1)) I can not see a bug. I have tried the first integral with Wolfram alpha, but get no solution too. Perhaps you can post the expected answer for the first integral. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846949&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090830 00:30:56

Bugs item #711885, was opened at 20030329 19:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=711885&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: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Rootscontract with imaginaries fails Initial Comment: q: ((SQRT(3)*%I+1)^(3/2)4*%I)/SQRT(SQRT(3)*%I+1) rootscontract(q) gives the error "SIGN called on an imaginary argument". The error happens within SIMPEXPT, which is not prepared to deal with (1/(SQRT(3)+1))^(1/2) in the form ((MEXPT) ((MEXPT SIMP) ((MPLUS SIMP) 1 ((MEXPT SIMP) 3 ((RAT SIMP) 1 2))) 1) ((RAT) 1 2)) Maxima 5.9.0 GCL 2.5.0 Windows 2000  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090830 02:30 Message: I think it is not a problem of rootscontract, but a problem of the simplifier. The following user input generates the error: (%i1) sqrt(1/(sqrt(3)+1)),radexpand:false; sign: argument cannot be imaginary; found sqrt( 3)  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); With radexpand set to false sqrt(3) does not simplify to sqrt(3)*%i but both expressions are valid user input. The problem is in simpepxt. In rootscontract the flag radexpand is set to false too. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060706 07:47 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Still present in 5.9.3cvs.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030815 05:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 cf bug report 789059 The reason I submitted separate bug reports is that in this case, it may be that rootscontract is passing a malformed expression to rootscontract, while in 789059, it is clearly a general simplifier problem.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=711885&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090829 20:15:25

Bugs item #1797296, was opened at 20070918 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=1797296&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Crazy results when doing limit of 'diff Initial Comment: Maxima version: 5.13.0Maxima build date: 15:45 9/16/2007host type: i586pclinuxgnulispimplementationtype: CLISPlispimplementationversion: 2.41 (20061013) (built 3380066971) (memory 3398964343) Maxima returns crazy results when evaluating the limit of an unevaluated derivative: Examples: limit('diff((x+1)/(x^21),x),x,1); limit('diff((x+1),x),x,1); limit('diff((x+n),x),x,1); Not only is the "with respect to" variable in the demoninator of the result wrong, i.e., d/d(x+1), but the limiting value of the variable is wrong. The limit was supposed to as x > 1, but the output shows the limit as x>0  reporter's email: joe.vender AT owensboro.net  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090829 22:15 Message: Limit does not try to simplify noun forms of derivatives, but replaces the noun forms by a gensym. This is done in $limit with a call to hide in the following line of code: (setq exp (resimplify (factosimp (tansc (lfibtophi (limitsimp ($expand (hide exp) 1 0) var)))))) I think the problem is, that hide is called to late. At this point the limit values have already been transformed. This is a piece of the corrected code: ;; Hide expressions with limit, derivative, integrate, sum ;; before any transformations of the limit values (setq exp (hide exp)) ;; Transform the limit value. (unless (infinityp val) (unless (zerop2 val) (setq exp (subin (m+ var val) exp))) (setq val (cond ((eq dr '$plus) '$zeroa) ((eq dr '$minus) '$zerob) (t 0))) (setq origval 0)) (setq exp (resimplify (factosimp (tansc (lfibtophi (limitsimp ($expand exp 1 0) var)))))) These are the results for the reported examples: (%i11) limit('diff((x+1)/(x^21),x),x,1); (%o11) 'limit('diff((x+1)/(x^21),x,1),x,1) (%i12) limit('diff((x+1),x),x,1); (%o12) 'limit('diff(x+1,x,1),x,1) (%i13) limit('diff((x+n),x),x,1); (%o13) 'limit('diff(x+n,x,1),x,1) This change solves similar problems with the limit of 'integrate too. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20071008 16:03 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Originator: NO Dear "nobody" (20071007 22:49), the quotation mark (') in the original bug report is critical. There is no problem with limit(diff((x+1),x),x,1); there *is* a problem with limit('diff((x+1),x),x,1).  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071008 04:49 Message: Logged In: NO limit(diff((x+1)/(x^21),x),x,1); works fine . and also the others: limit(diff((x+1),x),x,1); limit(diff((x+n),x),x,1);  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20070920 19:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Originator: NO The original bug is valid. A simple case: limit('diff(y,x),x,1) => 'limit('diff(y,x+1,1),x,0) The followup comment is confused. The syntax (..., ..., ...) in Maxima evaluates each of the elements of the list and returns the last value. This is the correct behavior.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20070918 22:45 Message: Logged In: NO also; limit(('diff(x^n),x),x,1); returns 1. Notice the mismatch of the parentheses. The problem lies in that adding ",x" after 'diff(x^n) and putting parentheses around the whole expression returns whatever is put after the comma instead of (del(x^n),x). Ex. 'diff(x^n) returns del(x^n) ('diff(x^n),x) returns x ('diff(x^n),abc) returns abc which is then evaluated by the limit function. It appears that when entering something like (f(x),f(y)) maxima always outputs f(y)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1797296&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090829 19:34:01

Bugs item #2846949, was opened at 20090829 20:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846949&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: ilt(expr,s,t) cannot calculate some difficult expressions Initial Comment: Hi! I use wxmaxima 0.8.2 in Ubuntu. I have some rational function and I need to do inverse Laplace transformation. So I use ilt(), but it can't solve this. I tryed maxima 5.10.0 and 5.13.0, the result is the same (see in the file). In 5.17.1 there is a Lisp error when I'm trying to evaluate. But when I try a slightly changed function (see in the file too) it can be solved. Mathcad 14 for Windows could even solve this with the first function. The result is in the file. But when I did a Laplace transformation with the result, mathcad gave me a very difficult solvation, and using wxmaxima I got a very simple result. Both of these results weren't the primary functon. So I don't know the right answer but I really need to!  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090829 21:33 Message: I have tried the examples with current Maxima 5.19post. Furthermore I have reformulated the integral a bit. It is equivalent, but looks simpler. You are right we get no solution for the following expression: (%i2) ilt(1/(s^2*(1 + a*s)*(1 + b*s)*(1 + c*s) + d*s),s,t); (%o2) 'ilt((a*b*c*s^3+((b+a)*c+a*b)*s^2+(c+b+a)*s+1) /(d*(a*b*c*s^4+((b+a)*c+a*b)*s^3+(c+b+a)*s^2+s+d)),s,t) +1/d As you have observed, we get a solution, when we omit the extra term +d*s: (%i3) ilt(1/(s^2*(1 + a*s)*(1 + b*s)*(1 + c*s)),s,t); (%o3) c^3*%e^(t/c)/(c^2+(ba)*c+a*b)b^3*%e^(t/b)/((ba)*cb^2+a*b) +a^3*%e^(t/a)/((ba)*ca*b+a^2)+tcba The Laplace transformation gives the original expression: (%i4) laplace(%,t,s); (%o4) c^3/((c^2+(ba)*c+a*b)*(s+1/c))b^3/(((ba)*cb^2+a*b)*(s+1/b)) +a^3/(((ba)*ca*b+a^2)*(s+1/a))c/sb/s a/s+1/s^2 We can see it more easy, when we factor the last result: (%i5) factor(%); (%o5) 1/(s^2*(a*s+1)*(b*s+1)*(c*s+1)) I can not see a bug. I have tried the first integral with Wolfram alpha, but get no solution too. Perhaps you can post the expected answer for the first integral. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846949&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090829 18:42:59

Bugs item #2846949, was opened at 20090829 18:42 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846949&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: ilt(expr,s,t) cannot calculate some difficult expressions Initial Comment: Hi! I use wxmaxima 0.8.2 in Ubuntu. I have some rational function and I need to do inverse Laplace transformation. So I use ilt(), but it can't solve this. I tryed maxima 5.10.0 and 5.13.0, the result is the same (see in the file). In 5.17.1 there is a Lisp error when I'm trying to evaluate. But when I try a slightly changed function (see in the file too) it can be solved. Mathcad 14 for Windows could even solve this with the first function. The result is in the file. But when I did a Laplace transformation with the result, mathcad gave me a very difficult solvation, and using wxmaxima I got a very simple result. Both of these results weren't the primary functon. So I don't know the right answer but I really need to!  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846949&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090829 18:40:00

Bugs item #2820202, was opened at 20090712 03:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2820202&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: 6 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: rootscontract(%i/2); Initial Comment: (%i1) rootscontract(%i/2); (%o1) %i/2 (%i2) build_info(); 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 (%o2)  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090829 20:39 Message: The following line in the routine rtcon in comm2.lisp is responsible for the bug: (setq e (list* (car e) 1 '((mexpt) 1 ((rat simp) 1 2)) (delete '$%i (copylist (cdr e)) :count 1 :test #'eq))) This code replaces the symbol %i with (1)*(1)^(1/2). The expression (1)^(1/2) is put on a list of roots. This is mathematically correct, but does not work. The routine rtcfixitup, which constructs the result does not handle inverse roots. In rtcfixitup (1)^(1/2) is replaced by %i but it has to be %i. I have no idea, why %i is not replaced simply by (1)^(1/2). I have tried this change. %i is replaced by (1)^(1/2): (setq e (list* (car e) '((mexpt) 1 ((rat simp) 1 2)) (delete '$%i (copylist (cdr e)) :count 1 :test #'eq)))) I have got no problems with the testsuite and the reported bug will vanish. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2820202&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090829 11:06:37

Bugs item #2846665, was opened at 20090828 22:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846665&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: Multiplication of block matrices Initial Comment: a: matrix( [1,2], [3,4] ); b: matrix( [a,a], [a,a] ); c:b.b; gives the output for c matrix([matrix([2,8],[18,32]),matrix([2,8],[18,32])],[matrix([2,8],[18,32]),matrix([2,8],[18,32])]) each element in 'c' is the corresponding element of 'a' squared and then multiplied by 2. I think the result of the multiplication of block matrices should be the same as if the matrices were unblocked.  Maxima version: 5.19.0 Maxima build date: 20:33 8/9/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090829 06:06 Message: Maybe you want to set matrix_element_mul to "." (%i6) matrix_element_mul : "."$ (%i7) a: matrix([1,2], [3,4]); b: matrix([a,a],[a,a]); c:b.b; (%o7) matrix([1,2],[3,4]) (%o8) matrix([matrix([1,2],[3,4]),matrix([1,2],[3,4])],[matrix([1,2],[3,4]),matrix([1,2],[3,4])]) (%o9) matrix([matrix([2,8],[18,32]),matrix([2,8],[18,32])],[matrix([2,8],[18,32]),matrix([2,8],[18,32])])  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846665&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090829 03:20:57

Bugs item #2846665, was opened at 20090829 03:20 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846665&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: Multiplication of block matrices Initial Comment: a: matrix( [1,2], [3,4] ); b: matrix( [a,a], [a,a] ); c:b.b; gives the output for c matrix([matrix([2,8],[18,32]),matrix([2,8],[18,32])],[matrix([2,8],[18,32]),matrix([2,8],[18,32])]) each element in 'c' is the corresponding element of 'a' squared and then multiplied by 2. I think the result of the multiplication of block matrices should be the same as if the matrices were unblocked.  Maxima version: 5.19.0 Maxima build date: 20:33 8/9/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2846665&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090828 17:52:03

Bugs item #2843628, was opened at 20090824 11:41 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843628&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: Duplicate Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Stefano Ferri (stefano_ferri) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: defint causes a stack overflow and Maxima crashes Initial Comment: defint causes a program stack overflow if one of its limits is an unevaluated element of an array. This is an example: (%i3) defint(x,x,l[1],l[2]); ***  Program stack overflow. RESET [../src/eval.d:573] reset() found no driver frame (sp=0xbf8630900xbf85d2a0) Exiting on signal 6 Aborted Maxima crashes with signal 6. Nothing changes if one writes: (%i1) array(l,5); (%o1) l (%i2) defint(x,x,l[1],l[2]); ***  Program stack overflow. RESET [../src/eval.d:573] reset() found no driver frame (sp=0xbfbdb4100xbfbd5620) Exiting on signal 6 Aborted This problem is very annoying: in fact it also makes impossible to do an evaluation of a noun form of an integral: (%i2) 'integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]); (%o2) 'integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]) (%i3) ev(%,nouns); ***  Program stack overflow. RESET [../src/eval.d:573] reset() found no driver frame (sp=0xbf9071300xbf901340) Exiting on signal 6 Aborted My build_info(): (%i1) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.19.0 Maxima build date: 7:23 8/10/2009 host type: i486slackwarelinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: CLISP lispimplementationversion: 2.46 (20080702) (built on slacky.slacky.eu [127.0.0.1]) Stefano  Comment By: Stefano Ferri (stefano_ferri) Date: 20090824 15:55 Message: Well, I'm glad to hear that it has already been fixed. Therefore can we close this bug report? Stefano  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090824 14:40 Message: I am sorry, but this errors are due to changes in the functions for the complex components and are caused by two different bugs. Both bugs have been already corrected in Maxima 5.19post. These are the answers: (%i8) defint(x,x,l[1],l[2]); (%o8) l[2]^2/2l[1]^2/2 (%i9) 'integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]); (%o9) 'integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]) (%i10) ev(%,nouns); (%o10) l[2]^2/2l[1]^2/2 We had no tests in the testsuite for this cases and I have not recognized these bugs until first problems where reported on the mailing list this month. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Stefano Ferri (stefano_ferri) Date: 20090824 12:08 Message: I've just tryed on a Windows XP machine with Maxima compiled with GCL instead of CLISP. I get no errors in Maxima 5.17.1 and 5.18.0, while there is an error in Maxima 5.19.1, but with no crashes. These are the details. for Maxima 5.17.1 (and similarly in 5.18.0): (%i3) defint(x,x,l[1],l[2]); (%o3) l[2]^2/2l[1]^2/2 (%i5) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.17.1 Maxima build date: 19:10 12/18/2008 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 In Maxima 5.19.1: (%i3) integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Error in PROGN [or a callee]: Bind stack overflow. Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. (%i4) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.19.1 Maxima build date: 11:22 8/17/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 Since GCL version is the same, it seems defint has got a problem in versions starting from 5.19. Could somebody check what's chamged? Stefano  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843628&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090828 17:51:28

Bugs item #2841504, was opened at 20090820 18:23 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2841504&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 of the factorial function  4 problems Initial Comment: 1. The limits from above and below for even negative integers are wrong: This is the correct limit for an odd integer from above. (%i4) limit(factorial(x),x,1,plus); (%o4) inf For an even negative integer the answer is minf, but again we get inf: (%i5) limit(factorial(x),x,2,plus); (%o5) inf The same problem for the limit from below: (%i8) limit(factorial(x),x,1,minus); (%o8) minf The sign of the infinity does not change: (%i9) limit(factorial(x),x,2,minus); (%o9) minf 2. Lisp error when the value is a symbol declared to be an integer. (%i10) declare(n,integer)$ (%i11) limit(factorial(x),x,n,plus); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: MINUSP: $N is not a real number Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. 3. No limit when the value is a floating point number representing a negative integer. (%i14) limit(factorial(x),x,1.0,plus); factorial: factorial of negative integer 1.0 not defined.  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); But for a bigfloat numbers it works. (%i15) limit(factorial(x),x,1.0b0,plus); `rat' replaced 1.0B0 by 1/1 = 1.0B0 `rat' replaced 1.0B0 by 1/1 = 1.0B0 `rat' replaced 1.0B0 by 1/1 = 1.0B0 (%o15) inf 4. Arguments with infinities do not simplify correctly. (%i1) limit(factorial(x+inf),x,a); (%o1) (a + inf)! (%i2) limit(factorial(x+minf),x,a); (%o2) (a + minf)! (%i3) limit(factorial(x+infinity),x,a); (%o3) (a + infinity)! Fixes to the routine simplimfact are reported on the mailing list. Dieter Kaiser  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20090828 13:51 Message: Applied suggested fix in limit.lisp rev 1.74  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2841504&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090828 17:50:27

Bugs item #2843705, was opened at 20090824 13:23 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843705&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 of psi[i] Initial Comment: (%i1) limit(psi[i](x),x,inf); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Error in MACSYMATOPLEVEL [or a callee]: $I is not of type NUMBER.  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20090828 13:50 Message: Fixed specfn.lisp rev 1.37  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843705&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090826 18:25:17

Bugs item #2843913, was opened at 20090824 16:49 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843913&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: Problem not in Maxima Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Assigned to: Andrej Vodopivec (andrejv) Summary: Hit the key [*] Maxima display [ｷ] Initial Comment: Hit the key [*] Maxima display [ｷ]  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20090826 12:25 Message: Looks like a character encoding problem in wxMaxima. Therefore I'm assigning this item to Andrej V (wxMaxima project) and closing it.  Comment By: Alexey Beshenov (beshenov) Date: 20090824 16:58 Message: It could be a bug in wxMaxima, not in Maxima itself.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843913&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090826 15:40:44

Bugs item #2845005, was opened at 20090826 15:40 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2845005&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  Solving equations Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Solving sin(x)/x error Initial Comment: As reported at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2617, solve(sin(x)/x=0,x) gives 0, which, technically speaking, is incorrect. Worse, solve(sin(x^2)/x^3=0,x) gives 0, which isn't even sort of correct. This is using Maxima 5.16.3, so it is possible this is fixed in the meantime. Thanks for any info.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2845005&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090825 09:26:20

Bugs item #2844127, was opened at 20090825 09:26 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2844127&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 throws bind stack overflow error Initial Comment: Hello, I just wanted to validate the following: If eq1: F(x) = integrate( f(x,t), t, u(x), v(x) ); then eq2: diff( eq1, x); should give diff( F(x), x ) = f(x, u) * diff( u, x) + f(x,v) * diff( v, x) + integrate( diff( f(x,t) , x), t, u(x) , v(x) ) but eq1: F(x) = integrate( f(x,t), t, u(x), v(x) ); results in the following error: Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Error in PROGN [or a callee]: Bind stack overflow. Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. Maxima version: 5.19.1 Maxima build date: 11:22 8/17/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 Thanks Norbert  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2844127&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090825 00:42:17

Bugs item #2843954, was opened at 20090824 19:42 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843954&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: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit of trig expression Initial Comment: (%i55) e : (2*sin(x)*z+cos(x)*sin(2*x)2*cos(x)^2*sin(x))/(z^2+(sin(2*x)^24*sin(x)^2cos(x)^21)*z+sin(2*x)^24*cos(x)*sin(x)*sin(2*x)+4*cos(x)^2*sin(x)^2); (%o55) (2*sin(x)*z+cos(x)*sin(2*x)2*cos(x)^2*sin(x))/(z^2+(sin(2*x)^24*sin(x)^2cos(x)^21)*z+sin(2*x)^24*cos(x)*sin(x)*sin(2*x)+4*cos(x)^2*sin(x)^2) (%i56) limit(e,z,0); (%o56) cos(x)/(sin(2*x)2*cos(x)*sin(x)) Bogus: (%i57) trigexpand(%); Division by 0  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); OK: (%i58) limit(trigexpand(e),z,0); (%o58) (2*sin(x))/((4*cos(x)^2+4)*sin(x)^2+cos(x)^2+1)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843954&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090824 22:58:37

Bugs item #2843913, was opened at 20090825 02:49 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by beshenov You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843913&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: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Hit the key [*] Maxima display [ｷ] Initial Comment: Hit the key [*] Maxima display [ｷ]  >Comment By: Alexey Beshenov (beshenov) Date: 20090825 02:58 Message: It could be a bug in wxMaxima, not in Maxima itself.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843913&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090824 22:49:01

Bugs item #2843913, was opened at 20090824 22:49 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843913&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: Hit the key [*] Maxima display [ｷ] Initial Comment: Hit the key [*] Maxima display [ｷ]  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843913&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090824 19:55:54

Bugs item #2843628, was opened at 20090824 17:41 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by stefano_ferri You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843628&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: Stefano Ferri (stefano_ferri) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: defint causes a stack overflow and Maxima crashes Initial Comment: defint causes a program stack overflow if one of its limits is an unevaluated element of an array. This is an example: (%i3) defint(x,x,l[1],l[2]); ***  Program stack overflow. RESET [../src/eval.d:573] reset() found no driver frame (sp=0xbf8630900xbf85d2a0) Exiting on signal 6 Aborted Maxima crashes with signal 6. Nothing changes if one writes: (%i1) array(l,5); (%o1) l (%i2) defint(x,x,l[1],l[2]); ***  Program stack overflow. RESET [../src/eval.d:573] reset() found no driver frame (sp=0xbfbdb4100xbfbd5620) Exiting on signal 6 Aborted This problem is very annoying: in fact it also makes impossible to do an evaluation of a noun form of an integral: (%i2) 'integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]); (%o2) 'integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]) (%i3) ev(%,nouns); ***  Program stack overflow. RESET [../src/eval.d:573] reset() found no driver frame (sp=0xbf9071300xbf901340) Exiting on signal 6 Aborted My build_info(): (%i1) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.19.0 Maxima build date: 7:23 8/10/2009 host type: i486slackwarelinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: CLISP lispimplementationversion: 2.46 (20080702) (built on slacky.slacky.eu [127.0.0.1]) Stefano  >Comment By: Stefano Ferri (stefano_ferri) Date: 20090824 21:55 Message: Well, I'm glad to hear that it has already been fixed. Therefore can we close this bug report? Stefano  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090824 20:40 Message: I am sorry, but this errors are due to changes in the functions for the complex components and are caused by two different bugs. Both bugs have been already corrected in Maxima 5.19post. These are the answers: (%i8) defint(x,x,l[1],l[2]); (%o8) l[2]^2/2l[1]^2/2 (%i9) 'integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]); (%o9) 'integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]) (%i10) ev(%,nouns); (%o10) l[2]^2/2l[1]^2/2 We had no tests in the testsuite for this cases and I have not recognized these bugs until first problems where reported on the mailing list this month. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Stefano Ferri (stefano_ferri) Date: 20090824 18:08 Message: I've just tryed on a Windows XP machine with Maxima compiled with GCL instead of CLISP. I get no errors in Maxima 5.17.1 and 5.18.0, while there is an error in Maxima 5.19.1, but with no crashes. These are the details. for Maxima 5.17.1 (and similarly in 5.18.0): (%i3) defint(x,x,l[1],l[2]); (%o3) l[2]^2/2l[1]^2/2 (%i5) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.17.1 Maxima build date: 19:10 12/18/2008 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 In Maxima 5.19.1: (%i3) integrate(x,x,l[1],l[2]); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Error in PROGN [or a callee]: Bind stack overflow. Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. (%i4) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.19.1 Maxima build date: 11:22 8/17/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 Since GCL version is the same, it seems defint has got a problem in versions starting from 5.19. Could somebody check what's chamged? Stefano  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843628&group_id=4933 