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}
(101) 
_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 

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

9
(2) 
10
(5) 
11
(2) 
12

13
(1) 
14

15
(1) 
16

17

18
(19) 
19
(1) 
20
(22) 
21
(6) 
22
(4) 
23
(2) 
24
(1) 
25
(1) 
26

27
(3) 
28

29
(5) 
30
(7) 
31
(2) 




From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100831 21:14:19

Bugs item #3056276, was opened at 20100830 16:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3056276&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: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: abs(x^2) with domain:complex Initial Comment: abs(x)^2,domain:real => x^2 OK abs(x^2),domain:real => x^2 OK abs(x)^2,domain:complex => abs(x)^2 OK abs(x^2),domain:complex => x^2 NO! Should be abs(x)^2 The abs(x)^2 behavior is not documented by the docstring, but makes sense and should also apply to the abs(x^2) case.  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20100831 17:14 Message: Maybe one way to simplify the logic here is to consider that domain:complex means that all variables are implicitly declared complex (unless explicitly declared otherwise).  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100831 17:07 Message: For the record: Both examples are correct for a symbol declared to be complex: (%i2) declare(z,complex)$ (%i3) abs(z^2),domain:real; (%o3) abs(z)^2 (%i4) abs(z^2),domain:complex; (%o4) abs(z)^2 The wrong simplification of abs(x^2) for a complex domain happens in the simplifier simpabs for the Abs function. The simplifier does not respect the global value of $domain. I think this bug report shows a general problem. Almost all functions in Maxima do not respect the concept of a real and complex domain. There are only some functions which take into account this concept. One example is the simplifier simpexpt for the power function. In Maxima core code I have counted 10 tests of the variable $domain. 9 of these tests are in simpexpt or related functions and 1 test we have in $rootscontract. We have the two functions risplit and $defint which set the global variable $domain to a value. In Maxima share code I have counted one test of the variable $complex. I had a look only at Lisp code. Perhaps, it is necessary to decide if it is desirable to fully implement the concept of a real and domain complex or to cut out the few examples of code, which we have. We always can declare symbols to be complex. This concept is implemented much more complete. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3056276&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100831 21:07:29

Bugs item #3056276, was opened at 20100830 22:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3056276&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: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: abs(x^2) with domain:complex Initial Comment: abs(x)^2,domain:real => x^2 OK abs(x^2),domain:real => x^2 OK abs(x)^2,domain:complex => abs(x)^2 OK abs(x^2),domain:complex => x^2 NO! Should be abs(x)^2 The abs(x)^2 behavior is not documented by the docstring, but makes sense and should also apply to the abs(x^2) case.  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100831 23:07 Message: For the record: Both examples are correct for a symbol declared to be complex: (%i2) declare(z,complex)$ (%i3) abs(z^2),domain:real; (%o3) abs(z)^2 (%i4) abs(z^2),domain:complex; (%o4) abs(z)^2 The wrong simplification of abs(x^2) for a complex domain happens in the simplifier simpabs for the Abs function. The simplifier does not respect the global value of $domain. I think this bug report shows a general problem. Almost all functions in Maxima do not respect the concept of a real and complex domain. There are only some functions which take into account this concept. One example is the simplifier simpexpt for the power function. In Maxima core code I have counted 10 tests of the variable $domain. 9 of these tests are in simpexpt or related functions and 1 test we have in $rootscontract. We have the two functions risplit and $defint which set the global variable $domain to a value. In Maxima share code I have counted one test of the variable $complex. I had a look only at Lisp code. Perhaps, it is necessary to decide if it is desirable to fully implement the concept of a real and domain complex or to cut out the few examples of code, which we have. We always can declare symbols to be complex. This concept is implemented much more complete. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3056276&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100830 20:24:05

Bugs item #3056276, was opened at 20100830 16:24 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3056276&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: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: abs(x^2) with domain:complex Initial Comment: abs(x)^2,domain:real => x^2 OK abs(x^2),domain:real => x^2 OK abs(x)^2,domain:complex => abs(x)^2 OK abs(x^2),domain:complex => x^2 NO! Should be abs(x)^2 The abs(x)^2 behavior is not documented by the docstring, but makes sense and should also apply to the abs(x^2) case.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3056276&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100830 14:57:00

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 11:30 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100830 10:56 Message: Closing report. I'm not going to answer the other questions; those are best asked on the mailing list. Please take your questions there.  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 10:27 Message: That does the trick. But without load command there was no warning/error that "simplify_sum" is not loaded. How many such modules are there? Can they all fit into workspace (memory) on an average computer? (I believe yes). Have you considered autoloading all such modules on startup (as Derive does)? Is there any other reason (besides efficiency) for not loading them all on startup? And my preference: simplicity over efficiency for stuff that is realtimefast (such as simple symbolic math). Anyway, thanks for the help.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100830 10:15 Message: Do this first: load(simplify_sum);  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 10:04 Message: This is behavior on my box: (%i1) declare(n, constant); (%o1) done (%i2) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o2) simplify_sum(sum(cos((4*%pi*i)/n)/2+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+1/4,i,0,n1)/n) I copied the statement from Dieter's post. I do not get results 1/4 (as Dieter is getting).  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100830 09:49 Message: Look at Dieter's comments. By using simplify_sum, he gets the answer of 1/4, as expected. Marking report as pending.  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 06:19 Message: Sorry, when copying the formula from my C++ code into Maxima for debugging purposes, I missed division by n within cosine functions. This is the correct formula: ratsimp(sum(0.5*cos((4*%pi*i)/n)+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+0.25,i,0,n1)/n); However, this does not simplify in Maxima. In Derive 6.1, it gives the result I was trying to confirm (the result I suspected by tracing variable values in my code): this sum is equal to 0.25. So, this can be changed from bug to feature request.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100828 21:38 Message: I do not see a problem and I get the expected results: (%i2) sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o2) 7/4 This is the same as (%i26) 7/4*sum(1/n,i,0,n1); (%o26) 7/4 When a division by n is missing in the cos functions we have to use the function simplify_sum to get a simplified result: (%i20) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o20) 1/4 This again is a correct result. The result does not depend on n. Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me". Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100827 15:08 Message: You missed division by n (at the end). And I missed division by n within cosines. I will have to check this again on Monday  I guess I have found a bug in my code now :D  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100827 13:55 Message: Why is the correct answer 0.25? 0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi) = 0.25 + 1 + 0.5 = 1.75 for all integer i. So it looks like the sum should always be 1.75 to me. Did I miss something?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100830 14:27:01

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 17:30 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dzenanz You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None Status: Open Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   >Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 16:27 Message: That does the trick. But without load command there was no warning/error that "simplify_sum" is not loaded. How many such modules are there? Can they all fit into workspace (memory) on an average computer? (I believe yes). Have you considered autoloading all such modules on startup (as Derive does)? Is there any other reason (besides efficiency) for not loading them all on startup? And my preference: simplicity over efficiency for stuff that is realtimefast (such as simple symbolic math). Anyway, thanks for the help.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100830 16:15 Message: Do this first: load(simplify_sum);  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 16:04 Message: This is behavior on my box: (%i1) declare(n, constant); (%o1) done (%i2) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o2) simplify_sum(sum(cos((4*%pi*i)/n)/2+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+1/4,i,0,n1)/n) I copied the statement from Dieter's post. I do not get results 1/4 (as Dieter is getting).  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100830 15:49 Message: Look at Dieter's comments. By using simplify_sum, he gets the answer of 1/4, as expected. Marking report as pending.  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 12:19 Message: Sorry, when copying the formula from my C++ code into Maxima for debugging purposes, I missed division by n within cosine functions. This is the correct formula: ratsimp(sum(0.5*cos((4*%pi*i)/n)+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+0.25,i,0,n1)/n); However, this does not simplify in Maxima. In Derive 6.1, it gives the result I was trying to confirm (the result I suspected by tracing variable values in my code): this sum is equal to 0.25. So, this can be changed from bug to feature request.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100829 03:38 Message: I do not see a problem and I get the expected results: (%i2) sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o2) 7/4 This is the same as (%i26) 7/4*sum(1/n,i,0,n1); (%o26) 7/4 When a division by n is missing in the cos functions we have to use the function simplify_sum to get a simplified result: (%i20) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o20) 1/4 This again is a correct result. The result does not depend on n. Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me". Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100827 21:08 Message: You missed division by n (at the end). And I missed division by n within cosines. I will have to check this again on Monday  I guess I have found a bug in my code now :D  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100827 19:55 Message: Why is the correct answer 0.25? 0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi) = 0.25 + 1 + 0.5 = 1.75 for all integer i. So it looks like the sum should always be 1.75 to me. Did I miss something?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100830 14:15:52

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 11:30 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None Status: Open Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100830 10:15 Message: Do this first: load(simplify_sum);  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 10:04 Message: This is behavior on my box: (%i1) declare(n, constant); (%o1) done (%i2) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o2) simplify_sum(sum(cos((4*%pi*i)/n)/2+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+1/4,i,0,n1)/n) I copied the statement from Dieter's post. I do not get results 1/4 (as Dieter is getting).  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100830 09:49 Message: Look at Dieter's comments. By using simplify_sum, he gets the answer of 1/4, as expected. Marking report as pending.  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 06:19 Message: Sorry, when copying the formula from my C++ code into Maxima for debugging purposes, I missed division by n within cosine functions. This is the correct formula: ratsimp(sum(0.5*cos((4*%pi*i)/n)+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+0.25,i,0,n1)/n); However, this does not simplify in Maxima. In Derive 6.1, it gives the result I was trying to confirm (the result I suspected by tracing variable values in my code): this sum is equal to 0.25. So, this can be changed from bug to feature request.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100828 21:38 Message: I do not see a problem and I get the expected results: (%i2) sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o2) 7/4 This is the same as (%i26) 7/4*sum(1/n,i,0,n1); (%o26) 7/4 When a division by n is missing in the cos functions we have to use the function simplify_sum to get a simplified result: (%i20) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o20) 1/4 This again is a correct result. The result does not depend on n. Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me". Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100827 15:08 Message: You missed division by n (at the end). And I missed division by n within cosines. I will have to check this again on Monday  I guess I have found a bug in my code now :D  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100827 13:55 Message: Why is the correct answer 0.25? 0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi) = 0.25 + 1 + 0.5 = 1.75 for all integer i. So it looks like the sum should always be 1.75 to me. Did I miss something?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100830 14:04:06

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 17:30 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dzenanz You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None >Status: Open Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   >Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 16:04 Message: This is behavior on my box: (%i1) declare(n, constant); (%o1) done (%i2) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o2) simplify_sum(sum(cos((4*%pi*i)/n)/2+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+1/4,i,0,n1)/n) I copied the statement from Dieter's post. I do not get results 1/4 (as Dieter is getting).  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100830 15:49 Message: Look at Dieter's comments. By using simplify_sum, he gets the answer of 1/4, as expected. Marking report as pending.  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 12:19 Message: Sorry, when copying the formula from my C++ code into Maxima for debugging purposes, I missed division by n within cosine functions. This is the correct formula: ratsimp(sum(0.5*cos((4*%pi*i)/n)+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+0.25,i,0,n1)/n); However, this does not simplify in Maxima. In Derive 6.1, it gives the result I was trying to confirm (the result I suspected by tracing variable values in my code): this sum is equal to 0.25. So, this can be changed from bug to feature request.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100829 03:38 Message: I do not see a problem and I get the expected results: (%i2) sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o2) 7/4 This is the same as (%i26) 7/4*sum(1/n,i,0,n1); (%o26) 7/4 When a division by n is missing in the cos functions we have to use the function simplify_sum to get a simplified result: (%i20) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o20) 1/4 This again is a correct result. The result does not depend on n. Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me". Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100827 21:08 Message: You missed division by n (at the end). And I missed division by n within cosines. I will have to check this again on Monday  I guess I have found a bug in my code now :D  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100827 19:55 Message: Why is the correct answer 0.25? 0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi) = 0.25 + 1 + 0.5 = 1.75 for all integer i. So it looks like the sum should always be 1.75 to me. Did I miss something?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100830 13:49:29

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 11:30 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None >Status: Pending Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100830 09:49 Message: Look at Dieter's comments. By using simplify_sum, he gets the answer of 1/4, as expected. Marking report as pending.  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 06:19 Message: Sorry, when copying the formula from my C++ code into Maxima for debugging purposes, I missed division by n within cosine functions. This is the correct formula: ratsimp(sum(0.5*cos((4*%pi*i)/n)+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+0.25,i,0,n1)/n); However, this does not simplify in Maxima. In Derive 6.1, it gives the result I was trying to confirm (the result I suspected by tracing variable values in my code): this sum is equal to 0.25. So, this can be changed from bug to feature request.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100828 21:38 Message: I do not see a problem and I get the expected results: (%i2) sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o2) 7/4 This is the same as (%i26) 7/4*sum(1/n,i,0,n1); (%o26) 7/4 When a division by n is missing in the cos functions we have to use the function simplify_sum to get a simplified result: (%i20) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o20) 1/4 This again is a correct result. The result does not depend on n. Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me". Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100827 15:08 Message: You missed division by n (at the end). And I missed division by n within cosines. I will have to check this again on Monday  I guess I have found a bug in my code now :D  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100827 13:55 Message: Why is the correct answer 0.25? 0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi) = 0.25 + 1 + 0.5 = 1.75 for all integer i. So it looks like the sum should always be 1.75 to me. Did I miss something?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100830 10:19:29

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 17:30 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by dzenanz You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None >Status: Open Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   >Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100830 12:19 Message: Sorry, when copying the formula from my C++ code into Maxima for debugging purposes, I missed division by n within cosine functions. This is the correct formula: ratsimp(sum(0.5*cos((4*%pi*i)/n)+cos((2*%pi*i)/n)+0.25,i,0,n1)/n); However, this does not simplify in Maxima. In Derive 6.1, it gives the result I was trying to confirm (the result I suspected by tracing variable values in my code): this sum is equal to 0.25. So, this can be changed from bug to feature request.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100829 03:38 Message: I do not see a problem and I get the expected results: (%i2) sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o2) 7/4 This is the same as (%i26) 7/4*sum(1/n,i,0,n1); (%o26) 7/4 When a division by n is missing in the cos functions we have to use the function simplify_sum to get a simplified result: (%i20) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o20) 1/4 This again is a correct result. The result does not depend on n. Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me". Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100827 21:08 Message: You missed division by n (at the end). And I missed division by n within cosines. I will have to check this again on Monday  I guess I have found a bug in my code now :D  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100827 19:55 Message: Why is the correct answer 0.25? 0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi) = 0.25 + 1 + 0.5 = 1.75 for all integer i. So it looks like the sum should always be 1.75 to me. Did I miss something?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100829 22:50:12

Bugs item #3055448, was opened at 20100829 15:10 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3055448&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: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: $load_pathname not documented Initial Comment: $load_pathname is bound to the pathname of the file which is processed by the functions $load, $loadfile, and $batchload. Dieter Kaiser  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100830 00:50 Message: Fixed in Input.texi revision 1.75. Documentation has been added. Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3055448&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100829 18:49:59

Bugs item #3055427, was opened at 20100829 06:57 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3055427&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: Share Libraries Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Barton Willis (willisbl) Summary: to_poly_solve : conjugate solver Initial Comment: Reported by R. Hankin in Sagesupport, 19 August 2010: (%i2) declare(a,complex,b,complex)$ (%i3) %solve([a*b=15*%i5,a*conjugate(b)=13*%i+9],[a,b]); Unable to solve #0: simp_%solve(e=[%c13*b = 13*%i+9,a*conjugate(b) = 913*%i,a*b = 15*%i5,%c13*conjugate(b) = 15*%i5,%c12*b = 1 < junk deleted> Either %solve should return a nounform, or a solution. It shouldn't terminate in an error.  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20100829 13:49 Message: Fixed by to_poly_solver.mac CVS revision 1.18; appended regression test to rtest_to_poly_solver.mac.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3055427&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100829 13:10:05

Bugs item #3055448, was opened at 20100829 15:10 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3055448&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: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: $load_pathname not documented Initial Comment: $load_pathname is bound to the pathname of the file which is processed by the functions $load, $loadfile, and $batchload. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3055448&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100829 11:57:32

Bugs item #3055427, was opened at 20100829 06:57 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3055427&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: Share Libraries Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Barton Willis (willisbl) Summary: to_poly_solve : conjugate solver Initial Comment: Reported by R. Hankin in Sagesupport, 19 August 2010: (%i2) declare(a,complex,b,complex)$ (%i3) %solve([a*b=15*%i5,a*conjugate(b)=13*%i+9],[a,b]); Unable to solve #0: simp_%solve(e=[%c13*b = 13*%i+9,a*conjugate(b) = 913*%i,a*b = 15*%i5,%c13*conjugate(b) = 15*%i5,%c12*b = 1 < junk deleted> Either %solve should return a nounform, or a solution. It shouldn't terminate in an error.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3055427&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100829 01:38:47

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 17:30 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None >Status: Pending >Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100829 03:38 Message: I do not see a problem and I get the expected results: (%i2) sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o2) 7/4 This is the same as (%i26) 7/4*sum(1/n,i,0,n1); (%o26) 7/4 When a division by n is missing in the cos functions we have to use the function simplify_sum to get a simplified result: (%i20) simplify_sum(sum((1/4+cos(2*i*%pi/n)+1/2*cos(4*i*%pi/n))/n,i,0,n1)); (%o20) 1/4 This again is a correct result. The result does not depend on n. Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me". Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100827 21:08 Message: You missed division by n (at the end). And I missed division by n within cosines. I will have to check this again on Monday  I guess I have found a bug in my code now :D  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100827 19:55 Message: Why is the correct answer 0.25? 0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi) = 0.25 + 1 + 0.5 = 1.75 for all integer i. So it looks like the sum should always be 1.75 to me. Did I miss something?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100827 19:08:40

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 17:30 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dzenanz You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   >Comment By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Date: 20100827 21:08 Message: You missed division by n (at the end). And I missed division by n within cosines. I will have to check this again on Monday  I guess I have found a bug in my code now :D  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100827 19:55 Message: Why is the correct answer 0.25? 0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi) = 0.25 + 1 + 0.5 = 1.75 for all integer i. So it looks like the sum should always be 1.75 to me. Did I miss something?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100827 17:55:07

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 11:30 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100827 13:55 Message: Why is the correct answer 0.25? 0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi) = 0.25 + 1 + 0.5 = 1.75 for all integer i. So it looks like the sum should always be 1.75 to me. Did I miss something?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100827 15:30:42

Bugs item #3054399, was opened at 20100827 17:30 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by dzenanz You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&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  Simplification Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dženan Zukić (dzenanz) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Sum incorrectly calculated Initial Comment: The commands below are steps to reproduce. The correct sum for n=5 is 0.25. (%i2) declare (n, constant); (%o2) done (%i6) sum((0.25+cos(2*i*%pi)+0.5*cos(4*i*%pi))/n,i,0,n1); (%o6) 1.75 GUI: wxMaxima on Win7 x64  Maxima version: 5.22.1 Maxima build date: 11:48 8/13/2010 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8   You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3054399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100825 21:06:35

Bugs item #3052194, was opened at 20100824 13:19 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3052194&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: algsys  variable order dependent Initial Comment: (%i1) algsys([za=%i*b,z+a=c,a*z+3*(az)=1312*%i,3*(za)+a*z=12*%i+13],[a,c,b,z]); (%o1) [] (%i2) algsys([za=%i*b,z+a=c,a*z+3*(az)=1312*%i,3*(za)+a*z=12*%i+13],[z,a,c,b]); (%o2) [[z=2*%i3,a=2*%i3,c=6,b=4],[z=(3*%i+11)/(%i3),a=32*%i,c=6,b=4]]  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100825 23:06 Message: I think this is a known bug. See ID: 1944012  solve() fails depending on equation order. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3052194&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100824 11:19:36

Bugs item #3052194, was opened at 20100824 06:19 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3052194&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: algsys  variable order dependent Initial Comment: (%i1) algsys([za=%i*b,z+a=c,a*z+3*(az)=1312*%i,3*(za)+a*z=12*%i+13],[a,c,b,z]); (%o1) [] (%i2) algsys([za=%i*b,z+a=c,a*z+3*(az)=1312*%i,3*(za)+a*z=12*%i+13],[z,a,c,b]); (%o2) [[z=2*%i3,a=2*%i3,c=6,b=4],[z=(3*%i+11)/(%i3),a=32*%i,c=6,b=4]]  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3052194&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100823 12:55:16

Bugs item #3051498, was opened at 20100823 21:55 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by hiromu You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3051498&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: Hiromu SAKAMOTO (hiromu) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Abort when solving nonlinear algebraic equation Initial Comment: I do not understand how to allocate() or reallocate enougth spaces  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3051498&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100823 07:45:26

Bugs item #3051069, was opened at 20100823 01:15 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by riotorto You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3051069&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  Plotting Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: arielCo (arielco) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: typo in draw.lisp Initial Comment: In line 1450 of maxima/share/draw/draw.lisp: (getoption '$line_tyype)  >Comment By: Mario Rodriguez Riotorto (riotorto) Date: 20100823 09:45 Message: Fixed in cvs and closing this bug report. Thanks.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3051069&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100822 23:15:47

Bugs item #3051069, was opened at 20100822 18:45 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by arielco You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3051069&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  Plotting Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: arielCo (arielco) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: typo in draw.lisp Initial Comment: In line 1450 of maxima/share/draw/draw.lisp: (getoption '$line_tyype)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3051069&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100822 19:39:36

Bugs item #3029092, was opened at 20100713 20:21 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3029092&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: Emilio Suarez (folok) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Operator ' does not work with integrate? Initial Comment: %i1 'integrate(x^3+3,x,1,5); %o1 168; I think it shouldn't evaluate the integral. Am I wrong?  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100822 21:39 Message: Setting the resolution back to none. The bug is still present in Maxima 5.22post. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Emilio Suarez (folok) Date: 20100714 15:52 Message: Then perhaps is due to the brackets at the begining and end of the integrate. Without loading abs_integrate, it works without this brackets, but loading this package it doesn't. Tkanks you very much  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20100714 00:09 Message: Workaround: (%i4) load(abs_integrate)$ (%i5) '(integrate(x^3+3,x,1,5)); (%o5) integrate(x^3+3,x,1,5) I'll see if I can make abs_integrate respect the quote...  Comment By: Emilio Suarez (folok) Date: 20100713 20:45 Message: Well, I test it's a conflict with the "abs_integrate.mac" package present in my maximainitmac. Sorry.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3029092&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100822 18:38:09

Bugs item #3037617, was opened at 20100731 20:00 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3037617&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: Pending >Resolution: Out of Date Priority: 7 Private: No Submitted By: Rad Radish (radradish) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: wxMaxima won't connect to Maxima on Win XP Initial Comment: After starting wxMaxima it displays "Maxima started. Waiting for connection..." indefinitely in the status bar area. When trying to evaluate cells then "Not connected to Maxima!" error is displayed. After trying to restart wxMaxima several times, there are also several cmd.exe processes left which have to be killed manually. I've tried disabling ZoneAlarm and Windows Firewall, choosing proper settings or even disabling DEP feature as described on http://maximaproject.org/wiki/index.php?title=Maxima_FAQ however no luck with that. System info: OS: Windows XP SP3 firewall: ZoneAlarm Free 9.2.057.000 Maxima version: 5.21.1  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100822 20:38 Message: I think this bug report is out of date. There is no response from the user. Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "out of date". Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Andrej Vodopivec (andrejv) Date: 20100809 17:20 Message: Do you have any nonascii characters in your username?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3037617&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100822 18:35:31

Bugs item #3041196, was opened at 20100807 19:04 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3041196&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  Simplification Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: carg(exp(x+%i*y)) > y not correct Initial Comment: I think the following result is not correct in general: (%i1) carg(exp(x+%i*y)); (%o1) y It is only valid for %pi < y <= %pi. This is a simple example: (%i2) carg(exp(n*%pi*%i)); (%o2) %pi*n The above result is correct for n=1, but not for n=2. For n=2 we have exp(2*%pi*%i) > 1. carg(1) is zero and not 2*%pi. A more correct simplification would be carg(exp(x+%i*y)) > atan2(sin(y),cos(y)) Dieter Kaiser  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100822 20:35 Message: Fixed in rpart revision 1.36. Now we get (%i7) carg(exp(x+%i*y)); (%o7) atan2(sin(y),cos(y)) The most general case is: (%i8) declare([z1,z2],complex); (%i9) carg(z1^z2); (%o9) atan2(sin('carg(z1)*'realpart(z2)+log(abs(z1))*'imagpart(z2)), cos('carg(z1)*'realpart(z2)+log(abs(z1))*'imagpart(z2))) Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3041196&group_id=4933 