Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.
Close
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120107 19:07:07

Bugs item #3470669, was opened at 20120107 11:07 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by storebjoern You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core  Assume Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: assume(...)$ can't be reworked Initial Comment: I have problems to investigate formulas, because e.g. the statement "assume (r > 1)" can't be overwritten by a statement "assume (r < 1)" Example: 1,step Writing assume (r > 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); results in log(r)+r^2r 2. step Adding new lines (or modifying asumeline from 1. step) assume (r < 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); still results in log(r)+r^2r 3. step Whereas assume (a < 1)$ integrate (1/x+a,x,1,a); results in the question "Is "a" positive, negative, or zero?"  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120107 20:37:00

Bugs item #3470669, was opened at 20120107 11:07 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by vttoth You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core  Assume Group: None >Status: Pending >Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: assume(...)$ can't be reworked Initial Comment: I have problems to investigate formulas, because e.g. the statement "assume (r > 1)" can't be overwritten by a statement "assume (r < 1)" Example: 1,step Writing assume (r > 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); results in log(r)+r^2r 2. step Adding new lines (or modifying asumeline from 1. step) assume (r < 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); still results in log(r)+r^2r 3. step Whereas assume (a < 1)$ integrate (1/x+a,x,1,a); results in the question "Is "a" positive, negative, or zero?"  >Comment By: Viktor Toth (vttoth) Date: 20120107 12:37 Message: There do not seem to be any bugs here. The second assume() fails with [inconsistent], which the user missed as output was suppressed (using $ instead of ; as a line terminator). A previous assumption can be discarded using forget(). As to the third issue, knowing that a<1 does not tell Maxima if a is positive, negative, or zero, so the question is warranted. In short: (%i1) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) assume(r>1); (%o2) [r > 1] (%i3) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); (%o3) log(r)+r^2r (%i4) assume(r<1); (%o4) [inconsistent] (%i5) forget(r>1); (%o5) [r > 1] (%i6) assume(r<1); (%o6) [r < 1] (%i7) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); Is r positive, negative, or zero? pos; (%o7) log(r)+r^2r (%i8) assume(a<0); (%o8) [a < 0] (%i9) integrate(1/x+a,x,1,a); Principal Value (%o9) log(a)+a^2alog(1)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120107 22:54:11

Bugs item #3470669, was opened at 20120107 11:07 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by storebjoern You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core  Assume Group: None >Status: Open Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: assume(...)$ can't be reworked Initial Comment: I have problems to investigate formulas, because e.g. the statement "assume (r > 1)" can't be overwritten by a statement "assume (r < 1)" Example: 1,step Writing assume (r > 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); results in log(r)+r^2r 2. step Adding new lines (or modifying asumeline from 1. step) assume (r < 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); still results in log(r)+r^2r 3. step Whereas assume (a < 1)$ integrate (1/x+a,x,1,a); results in the question "Is "a" positive, negative, or zero?"  >Comment By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Date: 20120107 14:54 Message: Got it  thank you. Have you maybe some idea to make the assume/factsdesign more handy? I could imagine, that some of the open bugs are related to the current chewy "assume" behaviour. Also new user may be frustrated using the system after such unexpected behaviour and without any comment will be gone forever.  Comment By: Viktor Toth (vttoth) Date: 20120107 12:37 Message: There do not seem to be any bugs here. The second assume() fails with [inconsistent], which the user missed as output was suppressed (using $ instead of ; as a line terminator). A previous assumption can be discarded using forget(). As to the third issue, knowing that a<1 does not tell Maxima if a is positive, negative, or zero, so the question is warranted. In short: (%i1) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) assume(r>1); (%o2) [r > 1] (%i3) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); (%o3) log(r)+r^2r (%i4) assume(r<1); (%o4) [inconsistent] (%i5) forget(r>1); (%o5) [r > 1] (%i6) assume(r<1); (%o6) [r < 1] (%i7) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); Is r positive, negative, or zero? pos; (%o7) log(r)+r^2r (%i8) assume(a<0); (%o8) [a < 0] (%i9) integrate(1/x+a,x,1,a); Principal Value (%o9) log(a)+a^2alog(1)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120108 00:22:12

Bugs item #3470669, was opened at 20120107 11:07 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by vttoth You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core  Assume Group: None >Status: Pending Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: assume(...)$ can't be reworked Initial Comment: I have problems to investigate formulas, because e.g. the statement "assume (r > 1)" can't be overwritten by a statement "assume (r < 1)" Example: 1,step Writing assume (r > 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); results in log(r)+r^2r 2. step Adding new lines (or modifying asumeline from 1. step) assume (r < 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); still results in log(r)+r^2r 3. step Whereas assume (a < 1)$ integrate (1/x+a,x,1,a); results in the question "Is "a" positive, negative, or zero?"  Comment By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Date: 20120107 14:54 Message: Got it  thank you. Have you maybe some idea to make the assume/factsdesign more handy? I could imagine, that some of the open bugs are related to the current chewy "assume" behaviour. Also new user may be frustrated using the system after such unexpected behaviour and without any comment will be gone forever.  Comment By: Viktor Toth (vttoth) Date: 20120107 12:37 Message: There do not seem to be any bugs here. The second assume() fails with [inconsistent], which the user missed as output was suppressed (using $ instead of ; as a line terminator). A previous assumption can be discarded using forget(). As to the third issue, knowing that a<1 does not tell Maxima if a is positive, negative, or zero, so the question is warranted. In short: (%i1) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) assume(r>1); (%o2) [r > 1] (%i3) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); (%o3) log(r)+r^2r (%i4) assume(r<1); (%o4) [inconsistent] (%i5) forget(r>1); (%o5) [r > 1] (%i6) assume(r<1); (%o6) [r < 1] (%i7) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); Is r positive, negative, or zero? pos; (%o7) log(r)+r^2r (%i8) assume(a<0); (%o8) [a < 0] (%i9) integrate(1/x+a,x,1,a); Principal Value (%o9) log(a)+a^2alog(1)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120108 21:44:24

Bugs item #3470669, was opened at 20120107 11:07 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core  Assume Group: None Status: Pending Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: assume(...)$ can't be reworked Initial Comment: I have problems to investigate formulas, because e.g. the statement "assume (r > 1)" can't be overwritten by a statement "assume (r < 1)" Example: 1,step Writing assume (r > 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); results in log(r)+r^2r 2. step Adding new lines (or modifying asumeline from 1. step) assume (r < 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); still results in log(r)+r^2r 3. step Whereas assume (a < 1)$ integrate (1/x+a,x,1,a); results in the question "Is "a" positive, negative, or zero?"  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120108 13:44 Message: There are lots of bugs caused by the assume database. But new users also shouldn't be suppressing the output of commands. I'm not sure what you expect maxima to do when given inconsistent facts. It did say inconsistent, but you suppressed the output. Perhaps maxima should signal an error for inconsistent assumptions? Then people would complain about the error message.  Comment By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Date: 20120107 14:54 Message: Got it  thank you. Have you maybe some idea to make the assume/factsdesign more handy? I could imagine, that some of the open bugs are related to the current chewy "assume" behaviour. Also new user may be frustrated using the system after such unexpected behaviour and without any comment will be gone forever.  Comment By: Viktor Toth (vttoth) Date: 20120107 12:37 Message: There do not seem to be any bugs here. The second assume() fails with [inconsistent], which the user missed as output was suppressed (using $ instead of ; as a line terminator). A previous assumption can be discarded using forget(). As to the third issue, knowing that a<1 does not tell Maxima if a is positive, negative, or zero, so the question is warranted. In short: (%i1) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) assume(r>1); (%o2) [r > 1] (%i3) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); (%o3) log(r)+r^2r (%i4) assume(r<1); (%o4) [inconsistent] (%i5) forget(r>1); (%o5) [r > 1] (%i6) assume(r<1); (%o6) [r < 1] (%i7) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); Is r positive, negative, or zero? pos; (%o7) log(r)+r^2r (%i8) assume(a<0); (%o8) [a < 0] (%i9) integrate(1/x+a,x,1,a); Principal Value (%o9) log(a)+a^2alog(1)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120815 15:46:34

Bugs item #3470669, was opened at 20120107 11:07 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core  Assume Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: assume(...)$ can't be reworked Initial Comment: I have problems to investigate formulas, because e.g. the statement "assume (r > 1)" can't be overwritten by a statement "assume (r < 1)" Example: 1,step Writing assume (r > 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); results in log(r)+r^2r 2. step Adding new lines (or modifying asumeline from 1. step) assume (r < 1)$ integrate (1/x+r,x,1,r); still results in log(r)+r^2r 3. step Whereas assume (a < 1)$ integrate (1/x+a,x,1,a); results in the question "Is "a" positive, negative, or zero?"  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120108 13:44 Message: There are lots of bugs caused by the assume database. But new users also shouldn't be suppressing the output of commands. I'm not sure what you expect maxima to do when given inconsistent facts. It did say inconsistent, but you suppressed the output. Perhaps maxima should signal an error for inconsistent assumptions? Then people would complain about the error message.  Comment By: Bjørn (storebjoern) Date: 20120107 14:54 Message: Got it  thank you. Have you maybe some idea to make the assume/factsdesign more handy? I could imagine, that some of the open bugs are related to the current chewy "assume" behaviour. Also new user may be frustrated using the system after such unexpected behaviour and without any comment will be gone forever.  Comment By: Viktor Toth (vttoth) Date: 20120107 12:37 Message: There do not seem to be any bugs here. The second assume() fails with [inconsistent], which the user missed as output was suppressed (using $ instead of ; as a line terminator). A previous assumption can be discarded using forget(). As to the third issue, knowing that a<1 does not tell Maxima if a is positive, negative, or zero, so the question is warranted. In short: (%i1) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) assume(r>1); (%o2) [r > 1] (%i3) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); (%o3) log(r)+r^2r (%i4) assume(r<1); (%o4) [inconsistent] (%i5) forget(r>1); (%o5) [r > 1] (%i6) assume(r<1); (%o6) [r < 1] (%i7) integrate(1/x+r,x,1,r); Is r positive, negative, or zero? pos; (%o7) log(r)+r^2r (%i8) assume(a<0); (%o8) [a < 0] (%i9) integrate(1/x+a,x,1,a); Principal Value (%o9) log(a)+a^2alog(1)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3470669&group_id=4933 