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

3

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

9
(1) 
10
(2) 
11
(2) 
12

13

14

15
(1) 
16
(1) 
17

18
(1) 
19
(2) 
20

21

22
(1) 
23
(1) 
24

25

26

27

28

29
(1) 
30
(1) 
31
(5) 



From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121031 18:03:58

Bugs item #3582205, was opened at 20121031 04:28 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3582205&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: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: is(2.0=2) returns false Initial Comment: It appears that the decimal of a number is not evaluated as equal to the number itself. I believe it may have roots in the data type the strings are translated into, but I wish to ask the rationale (so that I can work robustly with it) or if it is a bug. Thanks.  Comment By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Date: 20121031 11:03 Message: This is not a bug. Read the documentation for "=" which mentions that when used with is, this means, essentially, syntactic equality. You want to use is(equal(2.0,2)) which does return true.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3582205&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121031 11:28:16

Bugs item #3582205, was opened at 20121031 04:28 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3582205&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: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: is(2.0=2) returns false Initial Comment: It appears that the decimal of a number is not evaluated as equal to the number itself. I believe it may have roots in the data type the strings are translated into, but I wish to ask the rationale (so that I can work robustly with it) or if it is a bug. Thanks.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3582205&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121031 02:37:08

Bugs item #3578373, was opened at 20121019 05:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3578373&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: hgfred([1/2,a+1],[a+2],x); Initial Comment: (%i1) hgfred([1/2,a+1],[a+2],x); expt: undefined: 0 to a negative exponent.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121030 19:37 Message: Maxima is using the A&S 15.2.6 to derive the value from F(1/2, a+1; a+1; x). But that's equal to sqrt(1x) and 15.2.6 is not valid in that case. Perhaps 15.2.16 should have been used instead?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3578373&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121031 01:21:23

Bugs item #3577666, was opened at 20121016 08:03 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3577666&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: JeanYves (jyoberle) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: radcan seems to give nonequvalent function Initial Comment: Hi, When doing radcan((2*x)/(sqrt(1(x^21)^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21)^2))), the result is 2/(sqrt(2x^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21))*sqrt(asin(x^21)+1)). But these two expressions are not equivalent. For x = 0.4, (2*x)/(sqrt(1(x^21)^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21)^2)) gives 20.01585798944382 wheras 2/(sqrt(2x^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21))*sqrt(asin(x^21)+1)) gives 20.01585798944383. (2*x)/(sqrt(1(x^21)^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21)^2)) is the result of diff(acos(asin(x^21)),x) if this can help. Build info is build_info("5.28.02","20120827 23:16:48","i686pcmingw32","GNU Common Lisp (GCL)","GCL 2.6.8"). Best regards, JeanYves  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121030 18:21 Message: Although the documentation of radcan isn't very clear on this, radcan is expected to produce results like this. I think the idea is if x is very large, then both expressions are equivalent. I think that's true for your expressions. If this is not what you want, use ratsimp or some other combination of expand and factor. Marking as pending/invalid.  Comment By: Valery Lovchikov (lvch) Date: 20121018 23:19 Message: use function factor %i1 factor(sqrt(x^2u*x^4)); %o1 sqrt(1u*x^2)*abs(x) but %i1 radcan(sqrt(x^2u*x^4)); %o1 x*sqrt(1u*x^2)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3577666&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121031 01:12:33

Bugs item #3581619, was opened at 20121029 06:33 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3581619&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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Joni (jonisalonen) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Incorrect FFT for input of size 2 Initial Comment: To reproduce: inverse_fft(fft([1, 0])) Expected output: [1.0, 0.0] Actual output: [0.5 %i + 0.5,  0.5 %i  0.5] "fft([1,0])" produces [0.5, 0.5 %i], it probably should be [0.5, 0.5].  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121030 18:12 Message: Fixed.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121030 16:11 Message: Thanks for the report. It's a bug in creation of the sin/cos twiddle table for a 2point FFT. Will be fixed soon.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3581619&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121030 23:11:44

Bugs item #3581619, was opened at 20121029 06:33 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3581619&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: Joni (jonisalonen) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Incorrect FFT for input of size 2 Initial Comment: To reproduce: inverse_fft(fft([1, 0])) Expected output: [1.0, 0.0] Actual output: [0.5 %i + 0.5,  0.5 %i  0.5] "fft([1,0])" produces [0.5, 0.5 %i], it probably should be [0.5, 0.5].  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121030 16:11 Message: Thanks for the report. It's a bug in creation of the sin/cos twiddle table for a 2point FFT. Will be fixed soon.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3581619&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121029 13:33:35

Bugs item #3581619, was opened at 20121029 06:33 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by jonisalonen You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3581619&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: Joni (jonisalonen) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Incorrect FFT for input of size 2 Initial Comment: To reproduce: inverse_fft(fft([1, 0])) Expected output: [1.0, 0.0] Actual output: [0.5 %i + 0.5,  0.5 %i  0.5] "fft([1,0])" produces [0.5, 0.5 %i], it probably should be [0.5, 0.5].  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3581619&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121023 06:44:36

Bugs item #3579393, was opened at 20121022 23:44 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by lvch You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3579393&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: Valery Lovchikov (lvch) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: function polarform has bug Initial Comment: (%i1) polarform(f^^(1/2)); (%o1) %e^(%i*atan2(imagpart(f^^(1/2)),realpart(f^^(1/2))))*sqrt(realpart(f^^(1/2))^2+imagpart(f^^(1/2))^2) but (%i2) polarform(sqrt(f)); (%o2) sqrt(f) build_info("5.28.02","20120827 23:16:48","i686pcmingw32","GNU Common Lisp (GCL)","GCL 2.6.8")  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3579393&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121022 10:37:16

Bugs item #3579086, was opened at 20121022 03:37 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3579086&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: polarform not fully recursive Initial Comment: The function polarform not fully recursive: (%i1) e : sqrt(x^21)/(sqrt(x1)*sqrt(x+1)); (%o1) sqrt(x^21)/(sqrt(x1)*sqrt(x+1)) (%i2) e : polarform(e); (%o2) (%e^(%i*(atan2(0,x^21)/2atan2(0,x+1)/2atan2(0,x1)/2))*sqrt(abs(x^21)))/(sqrt(abs(x1))*sqrt(abs(x+1))) (%i3) e : rootscontract(e); (%o3) sqrt(sqrt(x^42*x^2+1)/(sqrt(x^22*x+1)*sqrt(x^2+2*x+1)))*%e^(%i*(atan2(0,x^21)/2atan2(0,x+1)/2atan2(0,x1)/2)) (%i4) e : rootscontract(e); (%o4) %e^(%i*(atan2(0,x^21)/2atan2(0,x+1)/2atan2(0,x1)/2))  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3579086&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121019 12:39:28

Bugs item #3578373, was opened at 20121019 05:39 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3578373&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: hgfred([1/2,a+1],[a+2],x); Initial Comment: (%i1) hgfred([1/2,a+1],[a+2],x); expt: undefined: 0 to a negative exponent.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3578373&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121019 06:19:06

Bugs item #3577666, was opened at 20121016 08:03 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by lvch You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3577666&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: JeanYves (jyoberle) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: radcan seems to give nonequvalent function Initial Comment: Hi, When doing radcan((2*x)/(sqrt(1(x^21)^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21)^2))), the result is 2/(sqrt(2x^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21))*sqrt(asin(x^21)+1)). But these two expressions are not equivalent. For x = 0.4, (2*x)/(sqrt(1(x^21)^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21)^2)) gives 20.01585798944382 wheras 2/(sqrt(2x^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21))*sqrt(asin(x^21)+1)) gives 20.01585798944383. (2*x)/(sqrt(1(x^21)^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21)^2)) is the result of diff(acos(asin(x^21)),x) if this can help. Build info is build_info("5.28.02","20120827 23:16:48","i686pcmingw32","GNU Common Lisp (GCL)","GCL 2.6.8"). Best regards, JeanYves  Comment By: Valery Lovchikov (lvch) Date: 20121018 23:19 Message: use function factor %i1 factor(sqrt(x^2u*x^4)); %o1 sqrt(1u*x^2)*abs(x) but %i1 radcan(sqrt(x^2u*x^4)); %o1 x*sqrt(1u*x^2)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3577666&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121018 08:46:06

Bugs item #3578043, was opened at 20121018 01:46 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by lvch You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3578043&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: Valery Lovchikov (lvch) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: function abs has bug Initial Comment: abs(u%e^(%i*t)) ^2 is not equal to (u%e^(%i*t))^2, but (%i1) abs(u%e^(%i*t)) ^2; (%o1) (u%e^(%i*t))^2  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3578043&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121016 15:03:54

Bugs item #3577666, was opened at 20121016 08:03 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by jyoberle You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3577666&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: JeanYves (jyoberle) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: radcan seems to give nonequvalent function Initial Comment: Hi, When doing radcan((2*x)/(sqrt(1(x^21)^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21)^2))), the result is 2/(sqrt(2x^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21))*sqrt(asin(x^21)+1)). But these two expressions are not equivalent. For x = 0.4, (2*x)/(sqrt(1(x^21)^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21)^2)) gives 20.01585798944382 wheras 2/(sqrt(2x^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21))*sqrt(asin(x^21)+1)) gives 20.01585798944383. (2*x)/(sqrt(1(x^21)^2)*sqrt(1asin(x^21)^2)) is the result of diff(acos(asin(x^21)),x) if this can help. Build info is build_info("5.28.02","20120827 23:16:48","i686pcmingw32","GNU Common Lisp (GCL)","GCL 2.6.8"). Best regards, JeanYves  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3577666&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121015 08:09:25

Bugs item #3577279, was opened at 20121015 01:09 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by lvch You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3577279&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: Valery Lovchikov (lvch) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: function atan2 has bug Initial Comment: map(atan2,[x,f(x),sin(x),cos(x)],[y,y,y,y]); [atan2(x,y),atan2(f(x),y),atan2(sin(x),y),atan2(cos(x),y)] but map(atan2,[abs(x),x^2,sqrt(x),exp(x)],[y,y,y,y]); [atan2(abs(x),y),atan2(x^2,y),atan2(sqrt(x),y),atan2(%e^x,y)]  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3577279&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121011 09:31:26

Bugs item #3575839, was opened at 20121009 14:58 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dem666 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&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: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: David J. López (dem666) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Nonnegative numbers are displayed too right in plots Initial Comment: I've noticed in maxima plots (based on postcript with gnuplot) that the positive numbers are slightly rightshifted from their axis ticks marks. I include a figure, see numbers 0, 1, 2 and 3 in the x axis of plot2d(sin(x),[x,3,3]) Using epslatex I've found the reason, see the space in the output of nonnegative the axis marks labels: \put(946,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}1}}% \put(946,1111){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.8}}% \put(946,1518){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.6}}% \put(946,1925){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.4}}% \put(946,2332){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.2}}% \put(946,2740){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0}}% \put(946,3147){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.2}}% \put(946,3554){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.4}}% \put(946,3961){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.6}}% \put(946,4368){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.8}}% \put(946,4775){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 1}}% \put(1078,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% \put(2032,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(2986,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 3}}% In the y axis the left space is not a problem, but in the xaxis the ticks must be \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% without the left space. PD: It seems it's a postcript problem. png or gif figures seems to be fine  Comment By: David J. López (dem666) Date: 20121011 02:31 Message: Sorry, a typo: user_preamble="set format '%g'" (in draw)  Comment By: David J. López (dem666) Date: 20121011 02:30 Message: The leading space is done by design in gnuplot. In maxima it can be corrected with [gnuplot_preamble,"set format '%g'"] (in plot) user_preamble="set format '%'" (in draw)  Comment By: David J. López (dem666) Date: 20121010 16:53 Message: After talking with Mario I've noticed that actually it's a gnuplot bug, not a maxima bug. This bug can be closed, I've opened it on gnuplot: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3576172&group_id=2055&atid=102055  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121011 09:30:09

Bugs item #3575839, was opened at 20121009 14:58 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dem666 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&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: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: David J. López (dem666) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Nonnegative numbers are displayed too right in plots Initial Comment: I've noticed in maxima plots (based on postcript with gnuplot) that the positive numbers are slightly rightshifted from their axis ticks marks. I include a figure, see numbers 0, 1, 2 and 3 in the x axis of plot2d(sin(x),[x,3,3]) Using epslatex I've found the reason, see the space in the output of nonnegative the axis marks labels: \put(946,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}1}}% \put(946,1111){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.8}}% \put(946,1518){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.6}}% \put(946,1925){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.4}}% \put(946,2332){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.2}}% \put(946,2740){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0}}% \put(946,3147){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.2}}% \put(946,3554){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.4}}% \put(946,3961){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.6}}% \put(946,4368){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.8}}% \put(946,4775){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 1}}% \put(1078,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% \put(2032,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(2986,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 3}}% In the y axis the left space is not a problem, but in the xaxis the ticks must be \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% without the left space. PD: It seems it's a postcript problem. png or gif figures seems to be fine  Comment By: David J. López (dem666) Date: 20121011 02:30 Message: The leading space is done by design in gnuplot. In maxima it can be corrected with [gnuplot_preamble,"set format '%g'"] (in plot) user_preamble="set format '%'" (in draw)  Comment By: David J. López (dem666) Date: 20121010 16:53 Message: After talking with Mario I've noticed that actually it's a gnuplot bug, not a maxima bug. This bug can be closed, I've opened it on gnuplot: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3576172&group_id=2055&atid=102055  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121010 23:54:22

Bugs item #3575839, was opened at 20121009 14:58 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by dem666 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&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: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: David J. López (dem666) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Nonnegative numbers are displayed too right in plots Initial Comment: I've noticed in maxima plots (based on postcript with gnuplot) that the positive numbers are slightly rightshifted from their axis ticks marks. I include a figure, see numbers 0, 1, 2 and 3 in the x axis of plot2d(sin(x),[x,3,3]) Using epslatex I've found the reason, see the space in the output of nonnegative the axis marks labels: \put(946,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}1}}% \put(946,1111){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.8}}% \put(946,1518){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.6}}% \put(946,1925){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.4}}% \put(946,2332){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.2}}% \put(946,2740){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0}}% \put(946,3147){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.2}}% \put(946,3554){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.4}}% \put(946,3961){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.6}}% \put(946,4368){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.8}}% \put(946,4775){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 1}}% \put(1078,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% \put(2032,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(2986,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 3}}% In the y axis the left space is not a problem, but in the xaxis the ticks must be \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% without the left space. PD: It seems it's a postcript problem. png or gif figures seems to be fine  Comment By: David J. López (dem666) Date: 20121010 16:53 Message: After talking with Mario I've noticed that actually it's a gnuplot bug, not a maxima bug. This bug can be closed, I've opened it on gnuplot: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3576172&group_id=2055&atid=102055  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121010 23:53:46

Bugs item #3575839, was opened at 20121009 14:58 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dem666 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&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: David J. López (dem666) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Nonnegative numbers are displayed too right in plots Initial Comment: I've noticed in maxima plots (based on postcript with gnuplot) that the positive numbers are slightly rightshifted from their axis ticks marks. I include a figure, see numbers 0, 1, 2 and 3 in the x axis of plot2d(sin(x),[x,3,3]) Using epslatex I've found the reason, see the space in the output of nonnegative the axis marks labels: \put(946,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}1}}% \put(946,1111){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.8}}% \put(946,1518){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.6}}% \put(946,1925){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.4}}% \put(946,2332){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.2}}% \put(946,2740){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0}}% \put(946,3147){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.2}}% \put(946,3554){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.4}}% \put(946,3961){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.6}}% \put(946,4368){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.8}}% \put(946,4775){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 1}}% \put(1078,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% \put(2032,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(2986,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 3}}% In the y axis the left space is not a problem, but in the xaxis the ticks must be \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% without the left space. PD: It seems it's a postcript problem. png or gif figures seems to be fine  >Comment By: David J. López (dem666) Date: 20121010 16:53 Message: After talking with Mario I've noticed that actually it's a gnuplot bug, not a maxima bug. This bug can be closed, I've opened it on gnuplot: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3576172&group_id=2055&atid=102055  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121009 21:58:36

Bugs item #3575839, was opened at 20121009 14:58 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by dem666 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&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: David J. López (dem666) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Nonnegative numbers are displayed too right in plots Initial Comment: I've noticed in maxima plots (based on postcript with gnuplot) that the positive numbers are slightly rightshifted from their axis ticks marks. I include a figure, see numbers 0, 1, 2 and 3 in the x axis of plot2d(sin(x),[x,3,3]) Using epslatex I've found the reason, see the space in the output of nonnegative the axis marks labels: \put(946,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}1}}% \put(946,1111){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.8}}% \put(946,1518){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.6}}% \put(946,1925){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.4}}% \put(946,2332){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.2}}% \put(946,2740){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0}}% \put(946,3147){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.2}}% \put(946,3554){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.4}}% \put(946,3961){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.6}}% \put(946,4368){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.8}}% \put(946,4775){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 1}}% \put(1078,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% \put(2032,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(2986,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 3}}% In the y axis the left space is not a problem, but in the xaxis the ticks must be \put(3941,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}0}}% \put(4895,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1}}% \put(5849,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}}% \put(6803,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}3}}% without the left space. PD: It seems it's a postcript problem. png or gif figures seems to be fine  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3575839&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121007 06:04:09

Bugs item #3565710, was opened at 20120907 21:50 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by antonvoropaev You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3565710&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: Anton Voropaev (antonvoropaev) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Maxima aborts (radcan, simp=false) Initial Comment: INPUT build_info(); radcan((6^(log(12)/log(6))+1)^(1/2)), simp=false; INPUT AND OUTPUT (%i1) build_info(); (%o1) Maxima version: "5.28.02" Maxima build date: "20120827 23:16:48" Host type: "i686pcmingw32" Lisp implementation type: "GNU Common Lisp (GCL)" Lisp implementation version: "GCL 2.6.8" (%i2) radcan((6^(log(12)/log(6))+1)^(1/2)), simp=false; <ABORT>  Comment By: Anton Voropaev (antonvoropaev) Date: 20121006 23:04 Message: Exactly, it is almost an "almost nothing" case. If there were no ^(1/2) then simp=false would be very beneficial: (%i1) radcan(6^(log(12)/log(6))); (%o1) %e^((log(3)^2+2*log(2)^2)/(log(3)+log(2)))*2^(3*log(3)/(log(3)+log(2))) (%i2) radcan(6^(log(12)/log(6))), simp=false; (%o2) 12 Setting logsimp=false works around the problem: (%i3) radcan((6^(log(12)/log(6))+1)^(1/2)), logsimp=false; (%o3) %e^(log(%e^(log(3)+2*log(2))+1)/2) Thereafter, one needs to call radcan repeatedly: (%i4) radcan(%); (%o4) sqrt(13) Anyway, I think that specifying simp=false should not cause a fatal error.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121006 11:34 Message: Why do you want simp=false? Almost nothing works with simp set to false.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3565710&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121006 20:19:43

Bugs item #3546444, was opened at 20120720 12:50 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3546444&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: polarform of zero returns atan2 Initial Comment: (%i1) polarform(cos(x)^2 + sin(x)^21); (%o1) %e^(%i*atan2(0,sin(x)^2+cos(x)^21))*abs(sin(x)^2+cos(x)^21) (%i2) trigsimp(%); atan2: atan2(0,0) is undefined.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121006 13:19 Message: Are you expecting polarform to simplify its arg? Otherwise, I kind of think this is expected.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3546444&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121006 18:34:41

Bugs item #3565710, was opened at 20120907 21:50 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3565710&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: Anton Voropaev (antonvoropaev) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Maxima aborts (radcan, simp=false) Initial Comment: INPUT build_info(); radcan((6^(log(12)/log(6))+1)^(1/2)), simp=false; INPUT AND OUTPUT (%i1) build_info(); (%o1) Maxima version: "5.28.02" Maxima build date: "20120827 23:16:48" Host type: "i686pcmingw32" Lisp implementation type: "GNU Common Lisp (GCL)" Lisp implementation version: "GCL 2.6.8" (%i2) radcan((6^(log(12)/log(6))+1)^(1/2)), simp=false; <ABORT>  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121006 11:34 Message: Why do you want simp=false? Almost nothing works with simp set to false.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3565710&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121006 18:32:44

Bugs item #3574923, was opened at 20121005 15:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3574923&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: Pending >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Daniel de Souza (leinadsouza) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate(ln(a*x^n)) Initial Comment: I'm having problems with the integral: ln(a*x) or ln(x); I'm having problems with the cursor of the wxMaxima too. When I'm writing, the cursor isn't in the word, but in front of it or longer. I don't know repare the cursor.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121006 11:32 Message: You probably want log, not ln. Maxima doesn't know what function ln is. For the wxMaxima problem, you should write another bug report, or report it to wxMaxima. Marking as pending/invalid.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3574923&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121005 22:20:59

Bugs item #3574923, was opened at 20121005 15:20 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by leinadsouza You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3574923&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: Daniel de Souza (leinadsouza) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate(ln(a*x^n)) Initial Comment: I'm having problems with the integral: ln(a*x) or ln(x); I'm having problems with the cursor of the wxMaxima too. When I'm writing, the cursor isn't in the word, but in front of it or longer. I don't know repare the cursor.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3574923&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20121005 02:46:26

Bugs item #3570209, was opened at 20120920 12:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3570209&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: Duplicate Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Manuel GonzálezHidalgo (manuelgonha) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: polar graphs are wrong Initial Comment:  build_info("5.28.02","20120827 23:16:48","i686pcmingw32","GNU Common Lisp (GCL)","GCL 2.6.8")  If I put in the console wxplot2d(t, [t,0,4*%pi],[plot_format, gnuplot], [gnuplot_preamble, "set polar; set trange [0:4*pi]; set rrange [0:4*pi];"])$ we obtain a incorrect plot of the function as we can see in the attached image. If I put in the gnuplot: set polar; set rrange [0:4*pi]; set trange [0:4*pi]; plot t; I obtain a coorect plot of the function. But in any case, that is for any function in polar coordinates, in Maxima the graph of the function isn't correct. Thank you very much for your attention, and waiting for a solution to this problem, says goodbye with a greeting and best wishes Manuel González Prof. University of the Balearic Islands  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20121004 19:46 Message: Duplicate of https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3570214&group_id=4933&atid=104933  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3570209&group_id=4933 