Let F : R -> C and F(x) = x exp(i x) = x cos(x) + i x sin(x).
Both the real and imaginary parts of F are oscillatory with
linearly growing amplitudes; neither the real nor the imaginary
parts have a limit towards infinity. I say the limit is UND.
Barton
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I am not sure what is the right answer. Wolfram alpha gives a result in terms of an interval:
E^((2 I) Interval[{0, Pi}]) Infinity
A noun form is not a wrong result. Perhaps, we can close this bug report at this point. Further improvements of the limit routines might give a more complete answer.
Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me".
Dieter Kaiser
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
A noun form is certainly better than und, but the correct result is Infinity. I would have thought that in the Wolfram world, the correct result would be ComplexInfinity (which corresponds to Maxima's Infinity).
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Logged In: YES
user_id=570592
Let F : R -> C and F(x) = x exp(i x) = x cos(x) + i x sin(x).
Both the real and imaginary parts of F are oscillatory with
linearly growing amplitudes; neither the real nor the imaginary
parts have a limit towards infinity. I say the limit is UND.
Barton
Logged In: YES
user_id=588346
I believe that the definition of limit(f(x))=infinity is that for all N,
there exists an X such that x>X implies abs(f(x))>N.
That is satisfied in this case. In fact, you can choose X=N.
The separate magnitudes of the real and imaginary parts are
irrelevant.
After all, limit(2+x*%i,x,inf) = infinity
The example of this bug report gives no longer 'und but a noun form (Maxima 5.20post);
(%i11) limit(exp(x*%i)*x,x,inf);
(%o11) 'limit(x*%e^(%i*x),x,inf)
I am not sure what is the right answer. Wolfram alpha gives a result in terms of an interval:
E^((2 I) Interval[{0, Pi}]) Infinity
A noun form is not a wrong result. Perhaps, we can close this bug report at this point. Further improvements of the limit routines might give a more complete answer.
Setting the status to pending and the resolution to "works for me".
Dieter Kaiser
A noun form is certainly better than und, but the correct result is Infinity. I would have thought that in the Wolfram world, the correct result would be ComplexInfinity (which corresponds to Maxima's Infinity).
Changing the title to reflect the issue better. Setting the resolution back to "None".
Dieter Kaiser
I'm fairly sure this is a bug in
simplimtimes:The function
simplimtimesapparently believes thatinf x ind = undis an identity.I also think that is bug is responsible for at least one other testsuite bug.