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}
(55) 
_{Sep}
(100) 
_{Oct}
(57) 
_{Nov}
(33) 
_{Dec}
(46) 
2016 
_{Jan}
(76) 
_{Feb}
(53) 
_{Mar}
(88) 
_{Apr}
(79) 
_{May}
(62) 
_{Jun}
(65) 
_{Jul}
(37) 
_{Aug}
(23) 
_{Sep}
(108) 
_{Oct}
(68) 
_{Nov}
(66) 
_{Dec}
(47) 
2017 
_{Jan}
(55) 
_{Feb}
(11) 
_{Mar}
(30) 
_{Apr}
(19) 
_{May}
(14) 
_{Jun}
(21) 
_{Jul}
(30) 
_{Aug}
(48) 
_{Sep}
(39) 
_{Oct}
(30) 
_{Nov}
(51) 
_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 

1

2

3
(8) 
4

5
(1) 
6

7

8
(1) 
9

10

11
(1) 
12
(1) 
13
(1) 
14
(1) 
15
(1) 
16

17

18

19

20

21

22
(2) 
23

24
(3) 
25

26
(3) 
27
(4) 
28
(2) 
29

30






From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120428 16:17:50

Bugs item #3522258, was opened at 20120428 09:17 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3522258&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: Documentation Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: No documentation for the ring used by invert_by_lu Initial Comment: The documentation (via "? invert_by_lu") for invert_by_lu says the factorization is done using the given ring. But there's no description or reference for how to specify the ring.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3522258&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120428 07:32:41

Bugs item #3520954, was opened at 20120424 03:43 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by mrverify You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&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: Mikael Samsøe Sørensen (mrverify) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Solve returns [] when solutions exists Initial Comment: When exponents contain decimals with many figures you risk: Maxima v. 5.25.1 (%i1) solve(%e^(0.0057195*x)+%e^(0.0057195*x)=1,x); (%o1) [] But solutions exist. Removing a decimal in the exponents: (%i1) solve(%e^(0.005719*x)+%e^(0.005719*x)=1,x); << expression too long ... >> Removing 1 more returns a list of result. A warning would be nice.  >Comment By: Mikael Samsøe Sørensen (mrverify) Date: 20120428 00:32 Message: True, but I still think it is inappropriate that Maxima returns []. Unable to solve or return the original equation would be better.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120427 08:54 Message: I think that if you are seeking numerical answers you should use a numerical method. find_root works great on this example: find_root(112.02267*%e^(0.0057195*x)/(1.80517*%e^(0.0057195*x)+1)^21.97,x,0,1000) 694.8021925434504  Comment By: Mikael Samsøe Sørensen (mrverify) Date: 20120426 13:40 Message: Good point. I tried to find a simpler version version of the actual equation that had the problem. But failed to see that it didn't have soutions. here is the right equation solve(112.02267*%e^(0.0057195*x)/(1.80517*%e^(0.0057195*x)+1)^21.97=0,x) it has a real solution at x=694.8  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120424 09:02 Message: A warning about what? Note also that your expression is equivalent to 2*cosh(.0057195*x)=1, which has no solution for real x. There is, of course, a solution for imaginary values of x, and maxima can solve 2*cosh(.0057195*x)=1. And maxima 5.27 appears to be finding roots of the original equation, but I didn't wait. For .00571, maxima returns a long list, but they're not actually solutions because x appears on both the lhs and the rhs. That's a bug in solve.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120427 16:25:54

Bugs item #3509580, was opened at 20120320 22:31 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3509580&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: Documentation Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: gamma_expand not documented Initial Comment: gamma_expand is not documented. But it's very useful: gamma_incomplete(10,100) >  916724786701525120*exp(100) gamma_incomplete(3,x) > 2*(x^2/2+x+1)*%e^x  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120427 09:25 Message: Documentation added.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3509580&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120427 16:00:09

Bugs item #3515201, was opened at 20120405 06:50 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3515201&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: Installation Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: laurens (jlaurens) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 5.26.0 on OS X missing 32 bit architecture Initial Comment: lipo info /Applications/Maxima.app/Contents/Resources/maxima//bin/sbcl shows that maxima only works on 64bits machines  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120427 09:00 Message: Aren't all Intel Macs 64bit machines? Even my old intel macmini will run 64bit apps. Do you have a specific need for a 32bit version?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3515201&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120427 15:54:54

Bugs item #3520954, was opened at 20120424 03:43 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&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: Mikael Samsøe Sørensen (mrverify) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Solve returns [] when solutions exists Initial Comment: When exponents contain decimals with many figures you risk: Maxima v. 5.25.1 (%i1) solve(%e^(0.0057195*x)+%e^(0.0057195*x)=1,x); (%o1) [] But solutions exist. Removing a decimal in the exponents: (%i1) solve(%e^(0.005719*x)+%e^(0.005719*x)=1,x); << expression too long ... >> Removing 1 more returns a list of result. A warning would be nice.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120427 08:54 Message: I think that if you are seeking numerical answers you should use a numerical method. find_root works great on this example: find_root(112.02267*%e^(0.0057195*x)/(1.80517*%e^(0.0057195*x)+1)^21.97,x,0,1000) 694.8021925434504  Comment By: Mikael Samsøe Sørensen (mrverify) Date: 20120426 13:40 Message: Good point. I tried to find a simpler version version of the actual equation that had the problem. But failed to see that it didn't have soutions. here is the right equation solve(112.02267*%e^(0.0057195*x)/(1.80517*%e^(0.0057195*x)+1)^21.97=0,x) it has a real solution at x=694.8  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120424 09:02 Message: A warning about what? Note also that your expression is equivalent to 2*cosh(.0057195*x)=1, which has no solution for real x. There is, of course, a solution for imaginary values of x, and maxima can solve 2*cosh(.0057195*x)=1. And maxima 5.27 appears to be finding roots of the original equation, but I didn't wait. For .00571, maxima returns a long list, but they're not actually solutions because x appears on both the lhs and the rhs. That's a bug in solve.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120427 06:46:43

Bugs item #3521596, was opened at 20120426 04:06 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by lvch You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3521596&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  Trigonometry Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Valery Lovchikov (lvch) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: atan2(sqrt(1u)*(u1),1); /* hangup */ Initial Comment: atan2(sqrt(1u)*(u1),1); Maxima version: 5.24.0 Maxima build date: 8:52 2/29/2012 Host type: i686pclinuxgnu Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.7  >Comment By: Valery Lovchikov (lvch) Date: 20120426 23:46 Message: atan2((1u)^(1/2^10)*(u1),1); /* habgup */  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3521596&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120426 20:40:37

Bugs item #3520954, was opened at 20120424 03:43 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by mrverify You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&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: Mikael Samsøe Sørensen (mrverify) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Solve returns [] when solutions exists Initial Comment: When exponents contain decimals with many figures you risk: Maxima v. 5.25.1 (%i1) solve(%e^(0.0057195*x)+%e^(0.0057195*x)=1,x); (%o1) [] But solutions exist. Removing a decimal in the exponents: (%i1) solve(%e^(0.005719*x)+%e^(0.005719*x)=1,x); << expression too long ... >> Removing 1 more returns a list of result. A warning would be nice.  >Comment By: Mikael Samsøe Sørensen (mrverify) Date: 20120426 13:40 Message: Good point. I tried to find a simpler version version of the actual equation that had the problem. But failed to see that it didn't have soutions. here is the right equation solve(112.02267*%e^(0.0057195*x)/(1.80517*%e^(0.0057195*x)+1)^21.97=0,x) it has a real solution at x=694.8  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120424 09:02 Message: A warning about what? Note also that your expression is equivalent to 2*cosh(.0057195*x)=1, which has no solution for real x. There is, of course, a solution for imaginary values of x, and maxima can solve 2*cosh(.0057195*x)=1. And maxima 5.27 appears to be finding roots of the original equation, but I didn't wait. For .00571, maxima returns a long list, but they're not actually solutions because x appears on both the lhs and the rhs. That's a bug in solve.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120426 11:06:42

Bugs item #3521596, was opened at 20120426 04:06 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by lvch You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3521596&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  Trigonometry Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Valery Lovchikov (lvch) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: atan2(sqrt(1u)*(u1),1); /* hangup */ Initial Comment: atan2(sqrt(1u)*(u1),1); Maxima version: 5.24.0 Maxima build date: 8:52 2/29/2012 Host type: i686pclinuxgnu Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.7  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3521596&group_id=4933 
From: Valery Lovchikov <lvch@sp...>  20120426 09:41:47

atan2( sqrt(1u) * ( u1), 1 ); infinity loop Maxima version: 5.26.0 Maxima build date: 22:48 1/15/2012 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8 Valery Lovchikov 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120424 16:02:51

Bugs item #3520954, was opened at 20120424 03:43 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&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: Mikael Samsøe Sørensen (mrverify) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Solve returns [] when solutions exists Initial Comment: When exponents contain decimals with many figures you risk: Maxima v. 5.25.1 (%i1) solve(%e^(0.0057195*x)+%e^(0.0057195*x)=1,x); (%o1) [] But solutions exist. Removing a decimal in the exponents: (%i1) solve(%e^(0.005719*x)+%e^(0.005719*x)=1,x); << expression too long ... >> Removing 1 more returns a list of result. A warning would be nice.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120424 09:02 Message: A warning about what? Note also that your expression is equivalent to 2*cosh(.0057195*x)=1, which has no solution for real x. There is, of course, a solution for imaginary values of x, and maxima can solve 2*cosh(.0057195*x)=1. And maxima 5.27 appears to be finding roots of the original equation, but I didn't wait. For .00571, maxima returns a long list, but they're not actually solutions because x appears on both the lhs and the rhs. That's a bug in solve.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120424 15:54:05

Bugs item #3520321, was opened at 20120422 07:21 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520321&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: inconsistency with complex numbers? Initial Comment: Dear developers and users of Maxima, troubleshooting a program of mine, I have discovered a Maxima's behaviour which appears inconsistent to me. There is a strange utilization of integer, real and complex numbers. Input of the example: kill(all)$ a: 0.1+%i*0.0; b: 0.0+%i*0.0; c: 0.0+%i*0.1; d: 0.1+%i*0.1; realpart(b); realpart(c); is(realpart(a)=realpart(d)); is(realpart(b)=realpart(c)); is(imagpart(c)=imagpart(d)); is(imagpart(a)=imagpart(b)); exp(%i*0); exp(%i*0.0); limit(exp(%i*x),x,0.0,plus); is(limit(exp(%i*x),x,0.0,plus)=exp(%i*0.0)); build_info(); output of the example: 0.1 0.0 0.1*%i 0.1*%i+0.1 0.0 0 true false true true 1 1.0 1 false Maxima version: 5.26.0 Maxima build date: 22:48 1/15/2012 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8 Particularly interesting the tests: is(realpart(b)=realpart(c)) is(limit(exp(%i*x),x,0.0,plus)=exp(%i*0.0)) both should produce true rather than false. Any idea about? Do I improperly/wrongly use Maxima? Is it a Maxima's bug? Thanks in advance for your support. Kind Regards Claudio  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120424 08:54 Message: As explained in the mailing lists in the messages: http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2012/028484.html http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2012/028485.html This is not a bug. Marking as pending/invalid.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520321&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120424 10:43:49

Bugs item #3520954, was opened at 20120424 03:43 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by mrverify You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&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: Mikael Samsøe Sørensen (mrverify) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Solve returns [] when solutions exists Initial Comment: When exponents contain decimals with many figures you risk: Maxima v. 5.25.1 (%i1) solve(%e^(0.0057195*x)+%e^(0.0057195*x)=1,x); (%o1) [] But solutions exist. Removing a decimal in the exponents: (%i1) solve(%e^(0.005719*x)+%e^(0.005719*x)=1,x); << expression too long ... >> Removing 1 more returns a list of result. A warning would be nice.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520954&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120422 14:21:10

Bugs item #3520321, was opened at 20120422 07:21 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520321&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: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: inconsistency with complex numbers? Initial Comment: Dear developers and users of Maxima, troubleshooting a program of mine, I have discovered a Maxima's behaviour which appears inconsistent to me. There is a strange utilization of integer, real and complex numbers. Input of the example: kill(all)$ a: 0.1+%i*0.0; b: 0.0+%i*0.0; c: 0.0+%i*0.1; d: 0.1+%i*0.1; realpart(b); realpart(c); is(realpart(a)=realpart(d)); is(realpart(b)=realpart(c)); is(imagpart(c)=imagpart(d)); is(imagpart(a)=imagpart(b)); exp(%i*0); exp(%i*0.0); limit(exp(%i*x),x,0.0,plus); is(limit(exp(%i*x),x,0.0,plus)=exp(%i*0.0)); build_info(); output of the example: 0.1 0.0 0.1*%i 0.1*%i+0.1 0.0 0 true false true true 1 1.0 1 false Maxima version: 5.26.0 Maxima build date: 22:48 1/15/2012 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8 Particularly interesting the tests: is(realpart(b)=realpart(c)) is(limit(exp(%i*x),x,0.0,plus)=exp(%i*0.0)) both should produce true rather than false. Any idea about? Do I improperly/wrongly use Maxima? Is it a Maxima's bug? Thanks in advance for your support. Kind Regards Claudio  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3520321&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120422 11:44:17

Bugs item #3510745, was opened at 20120324 02:09 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3510745&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: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: drunas97 (drunas97) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate gives strange results Initial Comment:  Maxima version: 5.26.0 Maxima build date: 22:48 1/15/2012 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8  I try to integrate functions of such a type: Kvar(f,N,t1,t2):=N/(N1)*(sin(%pi*f*t2)/(%pi*f*t2))^2*(1(sin(N*%pi*f*t1)/(N*sin(%pi*f*t1)))^2) they all are absolutely integrable. but maxima gives: integrate(Kvar(f,2,1,1),f,0,inf); defint: integral is divergent.  an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true); integrate(Kvar(f,2,1,1),f,0,inf),numer; 0.15915494309189*%pi integrate(Kvar(f,2,1,1),f,0.0,inf),numer; `quotient' by `zero'  an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true); I thought the mistakes originate from defining Kvar(f,N,t1,t2) at f=0 (0/0), so i changed the integration limits: integrate(Kvar(f,2,1,1),f,0.1,1); (2*%i*%pi*gamma_incomplete(1,4*%i*%pi)4*%i*%pi*gamma_incomplete(1,2*%i*%pi)2*%i*%pi*gamma_incomplete(1,(2*%i*%pi)/5)+4*%i*%pi*gamma_incomplete(1,(%i*%pi)/5) 4*%i*%pi*gamma_incomplete(1,(%i*%pi)/5)+2*%i*%pi*gamma_incomplete(1,(2*%i*%pi)/5)+4*%i*%pi*gamma_incomplete(1,2*%i*%pi)2*%i*%pi*gamma_incomplete(1,4*%i*%pi)27 )/(4*%pi^2) integrate(Kvar(f,2,1,1),f,0.1,1),numer; `quotient' by `zero'  an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true); At the same time: quad_qag(Kvar(f,2,1,1),f,0.1,1,6); [0.42152826647711,4.6799038697321796*10^15,61,0]  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20120422 04:44 Message: seems to be fixed in current sources. (%i13) Kvar(f,N,t1,t2):=N/(N1)*(sin(%pi*f*t2)/(%pi*f*t2))^2*(1(sin(N*%pi*f*t1)/(N*sin(%pi*f*t1)))^2); (%o13) Kvar(f,N,t1,t2):=N/(N1)*(sin(%pi*f*t2)/(%pi*f*t2))^2 *(1(sin(N*%pi*f*t1)/(N*sin(%pi*f*t1)))^2) (%i14) integrate(Kvar(f,2,1,1),f,0,inf); (%o14) 1/2  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3510745&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120415 15:12:12

Bugs item #3510618, was opened at 20120323 11:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by mjorlitzky You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3510618&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: Nils Bruin (nbruin) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Call stack overflow in evaluating a definite integral Initial Comment: Maxima 5.25.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp SBCL 1.0.511.fc16 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) y: (x^2)*exp(x)/(1+exp(x))^2$ (%i2) integrate(y,x,1000,1000); [...] Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Control stack exhausted (no more space for function call frames). [...] This bug is reported to still be present in 5.26. Note that Maxima quite happily computes the indefinite integral: (%i3) factor(diff(integrate(y,x),x)y); (%o3) 0  Comment By: Michael Orlitzky (mjorlitzky) Date: 20120415 08:12 Message: Hmm, I'm still seeing this on 5.27/ECL: (%i1) display2d: false; (%o1) false (%i2) f: (x^2)*%e^x/(1+%e^x)^2; (%o2) x^2*%e^x/(%e^x+1)^2 (%i3) integrate(f, x, 1000, 1000); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: BINDINGSTACK overflow at size 8448. Stack can probably be resized. Automatically continuing. To enable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Detected access to an invalid or protected memory address. Automatically continuing. To enable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. (%i4) build_info(); (%o4) ?%build_info("5.27.0","20120414 12:45:56","x86_64pclinuxgnu","ECL", "12.2.1")  Comment By: Nils Bruin (nbruin) Date: 20120327 16:35 Message: Thanks, Robert! Would you be able to check if bounds larger than 1000 are also good for you? For both my 5.25/SBCL and my 5.26/ECL I'm finding the cutoff is between 745 and 746. See below: Maxima 5.25.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp SBCL 1.0.511.fc16 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) display2d : false; (%o1) false (%i2) y: (x^2)*exp(x)/(1+exp(x))^2$ (%i3) integrate(y,x,745,745); (%o3) ((1490*%e^745+1490)*log(%e^745*(%e^745+1)) +(2*%e^7452)*li[2](%e^745)+555025) /(%e^745+1) ((1490*%e^745+1490)*log(%e^745+1)+(2*%e^745+2)*li[2](%e^745) 555025*%e^745) /(%e^745+1) (%i4) build_info (); Maxima version: 5.25.0 Maxima build date: 18:46 8/22/2011 Host type: x86_64redhatlinuxgnu Lisp implementation type: SBCL Lisp implementation version: 1.0.511.fc16  Maxima 5.26.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp ECL 11.1.1 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) display2d : false; (%o1) false (%i2) y: (x^2)*exp(x)/(1+exp(x))^2$ (%i3) integrate(y,x,745,745); (%o3) ((1490*%e^745+1490)*log(%e^745*(%e^745+1)) +(2*%e^7452)*li[2](%e^745)+555025) /(%e^745+1) ((1490*%e^745+1490)*log(%e^745+1)+(2*%e^745+2)*li[2](%e^745)555025*%e^745) /(%e^745+1) (%i4) build_info (); %% this is much slower than SBCL, though. Perhaps some tail call that SBCL %% optimizes away and is left in place in ECL?  Maxima 5.26.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp ECL 11.1.1 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) display2d : false; (%o1) false (%i2) y: (x^2)*exp(x)/(1+exp(x))^2$ (%i3) integrate(y,x,746,746); Condition of type: STACKOVERFLOW BINDINGSTACK overflow at size 8448. Stack can probably be resized. %% resizing the stack doesn't solve a problem and eventually runs out of %% resources  Maxima 5.25.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp SBCL 1.0.511.fc16 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) display2d : false; (%o1) false (%i2) y: (x^2)*exp(x)/(1+exp(x))^2$ (%i3) integrate(y,x,746,746); INFO: Control stack guard page unprotected Control stack guard page temporarily disabled: proceed with caution %% and then it hangs ...  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20120327 08:32 Message: Hmm, I can't confirm this. Maxima 5.26.0 + SBCL 1.0.45 + Ubuntu 11.04. I have seen problems caused by factoring terms like 1 + exp(n*x) where n is a large integer, but I'm not seeing a problem here. (%i1) display2d : false; (%o1) false (%i2) y: (x^2)*exp(x)/(1+exp(x))^2$ (%i3) integrate(y,x,1000,1000); (%o3) ((2000*%e^1000+2000)*log(%e^1000*(%e^1000+1)) +(2*%e^10002)*li[2](%e^1000)+1000000) /(%e^1000+1) ((2000*%e^1000+2000)*log(%e^1000+1)+(2*%e^1000+2)*li[2](%e^1000) 1000000*%e^1000) /(%e^1000+1) (%i4) build_info (); Maxima version: 5.26.0 Maxima build date: 9:15 3/27/2012 Host type: i686pclinuxgnu Lisp implementation type: SBCL Lisp implementation version: 1.0.45.0.debian  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3510618&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120414 17:07:16

Bugs item #3517785, was opened at 20120414 10:07 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by mjorlitzky You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3517785&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: Michael Orlitzky (mjorlitzky) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Wrong sign in exponential integral Initial Comment: Laurent Decreusefond reported this on the sagesupport mailing list. The function is positive, yet a negative result is returned from integrate(). I believe the correct result is +1. Maxima 5.27.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp ECL 12.2.1 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) display2d: false; (%o1) false (%i2) f: 1/(%e^(2*t)*sqrt(11/%e^(2*t))); (%o2) %e^(2*t)/sqrt(1%e^(2*t)) (%i3) integrate(f, t, 0, inf); (%o3) 1  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3517785&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120413 15:55:12

Bugs item #3517264, was opened at 20120412 10:40 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3517264&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: gamma_incomplete(v,0) Initial Comment: Maxima always returns the noun form for this. From the integral definition of gamma_incomplete, this should simplify to gamma(v). Is there some other reason to leave it in this form?  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120413 08:55 Message: gamma_incomplete(v,0) is gamma(v) only if v is positive. Maxima does check for the sign of v and if it is positive returns gamma(v): assume(v>0); gamma_incomplete(v,0) > gamma(v) Closing bug.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3517264&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120412 17:40:05

Bugs item #3517264, was opened at 20120412 10:40 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3517264&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: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: gamma_incomplete(v,0) Initial Comment: Maxima always returns the noun form for this. From the integral definition of gamma_incomplete, this should simplify to gamma(v). Is there some other reason to leave it in this form?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3517264&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120411 21:59:44

Bugs item #3517034, was opened at 20120411 14:59 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3517034&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: polarform error on simple case Initial Comment: expr: (a+1)/2  a/2  1/2 polarform(expr) => ERROR atan2(0,0) has been generated same for carg(expr) expr is a simple syntactically real expression, and is equal to 0 (ratsimp performs the simplification) The polarform of 0 is 0. Bug is in absarg, which blindly assumes expr is nonzero.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3517034&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120408 22:08:34

Bugs item #3515955, was opened at 20120408 15:08 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by woollett You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3515955&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: Ted Woollett (woollett) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: is (equal (...)) with realpart Initial Comment: with 5.26.0 gcl (windows) (%i1) display2d:false$ (%i2) bex : 1/sqrt(sin(x)); (%o2) 1/sqrt(sin(x)) (%i3) realpart(bex); (%o3) cos(atan2(0,sin(x))/2)/sqrt(abs(sin(x))) (%i4) imagpart(bex); (%o4) sin(atan2(0,sin(x))/2)/sqrt(abs(sin(x))) (%i5) is (equal (bex, realpart(bex))); (%o5) true <== wrong! (%i6) is (equal (bex, imagpart(bex))); (%o6) false <== correct Here we also show that if a calling program (test) gets the wrong "true" answer from is(equal(...)), and then calls a subprogram (test1), an incorrect evaluation of realpart(expr) is found in test1. This occurs in both 5.26.0gcl and 5.25.1gcl. program: test1(bex) := block([bexr], print (" test1 "), print(" bex = ",bex), bexr : realpart(bex), print(" bexr = ",bexr), bexr)$ test(aex) := block([aexr,ans1,isr], print(" test "), print(" aex = ",aex), aexr : realpart(aex), print(" aexr = ",aexr), isr : is(equal(aex,realpart(aex))), print(" isr = ",isr), ans1 : test1(aex), ans1)$ display2d:false$ demonstration of problem : (%i1) load(test); (%o1) "c:/work2/test.mac" (%i2) test(1/sqrt(sin(x))); test aex = 1/sqrt(sin(x)) aexr = cos(atan2(0,sin(x))/2)/sqrt(abs(sin(x))) isr = t test1 bex = 1/sqrt(sin(x)) bexr = 1/sqrt(sin(x)) (%o2) 1/sqrt(sin(x)) (%i3) realpart(1/sqrt(sin(x))); (%o3) cos(atan2(0,sin(x))/2)/sqrt(abs(sin(x))) (%i4) is(equal(1/sqrt(sin(x)), realpart(1/sqrt(sin(x))))); (%o4) true (%i5) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.26.0 Maxima build date: 22:48 1/15/2012 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=3515955&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120405 13:50:13

Bugs item #3515201, was opened at 20120405 06:50 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by jlaurens You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3515201&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: Installation Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: laurens (jlaurens) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 5.26.0 on OS X missing 32 bit architecture Initial Comment: lipo info /Applications/Maxima.app/Contents/Resources/maxima//bin/sbcl shows that maxima only works on 64bits machines  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3515201&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120403 16:51:53

Bugs item #3514613, was opened at 20120403 08:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3514613&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  Differential eqns Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Uldis (wizulis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Incorrect diff result (minus sign) Initial Comment: Evaluating: diff(3*x^2/(1x),x); gives: 3x/(1x)^2 + 6x/(1x) insted of: 3x/(1x)^2 +6x/(1x) (note the minus sign in the begining). Version is 5.26.0.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120403 09:51 Message: It does look like at least one of the alternate forms in wolframalpha is wrong. Setting status to closed now.  Comment By: Uldis (wizulis) Date: 20120403 09:26 Message: Ehh.. found my own mistake. Bug closed. The strange part is that i checked this result before submitting in wolframaplha and it seems that either i'm totaly incompetent today or wolframalpha gives the incorrect results.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120403 08:58 Message: Why should there be a minus sign? plot2d(3*x^2/(1x),[x,0,.9]) appears to be an increasing function in that interval, but your derivative is negative at, say, x=3/4.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3514613&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120403 16:26:03

Bugs item #3514613, was opened at 20120403 08:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by wizulis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3514613&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  Differential eqns Group: None Status: Open >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Uldis (wizulis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Incorrect diff result (minus sign) Initial Comment: Evaluating: diff(3*x^2/(1x),x); gives: 3x/(1x)^2 + 6x/(1x) insted of: 3x/(1x)^2 +6x/(1x) (note the minus sign in the begining). Version is 5.26.0.  >Comment By: Uldis (wizulis) Date: 20120403 09:26 Message: Ehh.. found my own mistake. Bug closed. The strange part is that i checked this result before submitting in wolframaplha and it seems that either i'm totaly incompetent today or wolframalpha gives the incorrect results.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120403 08:58 Message: Why should there be a minus sign? plot2d(3*x^2/(1x),[x,0,.9]) appears to be an increasing function in that interval, but your derivative is negative at, say, x=3/4.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3514613&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120403 15:58:15

Bugs item #3514613, was opened at 20120403 08:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3514613&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  Differential eqns Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Uldis (wizulis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Incorrect diff result (minus sign) Initial Comment: Evaluating: diff(3*x^2/(1x),x); gives: 3x/(1x)^2 + 6x/(1x) insted of: 3x/(1x)^2 +6x/(1x) (note the minus sign in the begining). Version is 5.26.0.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20120403 08:58 Message: Why should there be a minus sign? plot2d(3*x^2/(1x),[x,0,.9]) appears to be an increasing function in that interval, but your derivative is negative at, say, x=3/4.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3514613&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20120403 15:08:12

Bugs item #3514613, was opened at 20120403 08:08 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by wizulis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3514613&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  Differential eqns Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Uldis (wizulis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Incorrect diff result (minus sign) Initial Comment: Evaluating: diff(3*x^2/(1x),x); gives: 3x/(1x)^2 + 6x/(1x) insted of: 3x/(1x)^2 +6x/(1x) (note the minus sign in the begining). Version is 5.26.0.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3514613&group_id=4933 