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}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 



1
(1) 
2
(1) 
3
(10) 
4

5

6
(3) 
7
(2) 
8
(3) 
9
(1) 
10

11
(4) 
12
(3) 
13

14
(2) 
15
(1) 
16

17
(2) 
18

19

20
(1) 
21

22

23
(1) 
24
(2) 
25
(3) 
26

27

28

29
(1) 
30
(1) 



From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030430 17:35:45

Bugs item #727542, was opened at 20030425 15:35 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by kratt5 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727542&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Martin Rubey (kratt5) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Summary: powerseries wrong/fix Initial Comment: (C51) gf:2*(1751144*x4882*x^3+4324*x^42072*x^5+416*x^6+3189*x^2)/ (2*x1)^3/(4*x1)/(x1)^3$ (C52) taylor(gf,x,0,3); 2 3 (D52)/T/ 350 + 2262 x + 11634 x + 53650 x + . . . (C53) taylor(powerseries(gf,x,0),x,0,3); 2 3 (D53)/T/ 470 + 2862 x + 13524 x + 58750 x + . . . maybe this is related to sum(x^i,i,0,inf),x:0 giving 0, but I don't know... I checked D53 with Maple, so it seems that powerseries is wrong, not taylor. I converted the result of powerseries to the rational function again, and obtained: 2*(9407436*x41588*x^322066*x^5+40253*x^4+416*x^81816*x^7+7076*x^6+24227*x^2) /(2*x1)^3/(4*x1)/(x2)^2/(x1)^3 The difference between the two is 160*'SUM((I+1)*2^I*x^I,I,0,INF)160*'SUM((I+1)*2^(I2)*x^I,I,0,INF) so the reason might be a simple typo ( instead of + or the like)... Should be possible to correct this... Martin  >Comment By: Martin Rubey (kratt5) Date: 20030430 17:35 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=651552 Here is the fix. It's a typo, as I expected... should really be applied as soon as possible since it gets everything wrong, where the partial fraction expansion contains (a*x+c)^(2)... Martin diff c series.lisp series.lisp.~1.1.1.1.~ *** series.lisp Wed Apr 30 19:32:58 2003  series.lisp.~1.1.1.1.~ Mon May 8 08:09:41 2000 *************** *** 248,255 **** 0)) ((= 2 n) (psp2form (m* (m+ 1 *index) ! (m^ a (m* 1 (m+ 2 *index))) ;; kratt5 ! (m^ (m* 1 c) *index)) ;; kratt5 (if (equal m 1) *index (m* *index m)) 0)) (t (psp2form (m* (do ((nn (f1 n) (f1 nn))  248,255  0)) ((= 2 n) (psp2form (m* (m+ 1 *index) ! (m^ c (m* 1 (m+ 2 *index))) ! (m^ (m* 1 a) *index)) (if (equal m 1) *index (m* *index m)) 0)) (t (psp2form (m* (do ((nn (f1 n) (f1 nn))  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727542&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030429 08:13:59

Bugs item #729399, was opened at 20030429 01:13 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=729399&group_id=4933 Category: Xmaxima Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: entermatrix on Windows v5.9.0 Initial Comment: When running entermatrix it does not show the prompt texts, but waits for further user input. If you type the data blindly, only when you are finished entering the data will it parse the input and show the prompts AFTERWARDS. See a simple session below: (C1) entermatrix(2,2); [ENTER] 4;1;2;3;4; [ENTER] Response AFTER this is: Is the matrix 1. Diagonal 2. Symmetric 3. Antisymmetric 4. General Answer 1, 2, 3 or 4 : Row 1 Column 1: Row 1 Column 2: Row 2 Column 1: Row 2 Column 2: Matrix entered. [ 1 2 ] (D1) [ ] [ 3 4 ] Notice that it shows the prompts AFTER completing user input. Tibor Futo  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=729399&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030425 23:59:54

Bugs item #727811, was opened at 20030426 01:59 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727811&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Jesper Harder (harder) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Patch for mactex.lisp Initial Comment: `tex' does not translate `and', `or', `not' and `#' to valid TeX expressions. Currently we get this: tex('(a # b)); => $$a # b$$ tex('(a and b)); => $$a(\and)b$$ tex('(a or b)); => $$a(\or)b$$ tex('(not a)); => $$\not a$$ Which are all invalid. `\not', `\and', `\or' and `#' should be replaced with `\neg', `\land', `\lor' and `\ne'. Additionally `or' and `and' should be texinfix not texnary. After applying the attached patch we get this: tex('(a # b)); => $$a\ne b$$ tex('(a and b)); => $$a\land b$$ tex('(a or b)); => $$a(\lor )b$$ tex('(not a)); => $$\neg\,a$$ The parens in `or' still aren't quite right, but at least it's valid TeX.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727811&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030425 15:35:19

Bugs item #727542, was opened at 20030425 15:35 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727542&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Martin Rubey (kratt5) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: powerseries wrong Initial Comment: (C51) gf:2*(1751144*x4882*x^3+4324*x^42072*x^5+416*x^6+3189*x^2)/ (2*x1)^3/(4*x1)/(x1)^3$ (C52) taylor(gf,x,0,3); 2 3 (D52)/T/ 350 + 2262 x + 11634 x + 53650 x + . . . (C53) taylor(powerseries(gf,x,0),x,0,3); 2 3 (D53)/T/ 470 + 2862 x + 13524 x + 58750 x + . . . maybe this is related to sum(x^i,i,0,inf),x:0 giving 0, but I don't know... I checked D53 with Maple, so it seems that powerseries is wrong, not taylor. I converted the result of powerseries to the rational function again, and obtained: 2*(9407436*x41588*x^322066*x^5+40253*x^4+416*x^81816*x^7+7076*x^6+24227*x^2) /(2*x1)^3/(4*x1)/(x2)^2/(x1)^3 The difference between the two is 160*'SUM((I+1)*2^I*x^I,I,0,INF)160*'SUM((I+1)*2^(I2)*x^I,I,0,INF) so the reason might be a simple typo ( instead of + or the like)... Should be possible to correct this... Martin  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727542&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030425 13:38:33

Bugs item #727032, was opened at 20030424 19:29 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by lical You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727032&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: Fix for 5.9.0 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Too long integral result: integrate((9/cos(7*x)^2),x); Initial Comment: Hi, I think that: integrate((9/cos(7*x)^2),x); should give: 9*tan(7*x)/7 but I get a very long result that I don't know if is correct (i think not because if i try to derive it I don't get the original function...). Details about Maxima version:  Maxima Version: 5.9.0 Maxima Build date: 16:22 4/1/2003 host type: i686pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: CLISP lispimplementationversion: 2.29 (released 20020725) (built 3258193367) (memory 3258195754)   Comment By: Ricardo (lical) Date: 20030425 15:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=474377 So it is not a bug then... Excuse me if I disturbed :( Anyway, wouldn't it be interesting getting 9*tan(7*x)/7 instead of that long one? Thanks for your comment.  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisb) Date: 20030425 00:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=570592 I believe the antiderivative is correct; it's possible to show that the derivative of the antiderivative equals the integrand. But the simplification isn't automatic. (C1) display2d : false; (D1) FALSE (C2) f : 9 / (cos(7*x))^2; (D2) 9/COS(7*x)^2 (C3) integrate(f,x); (D3) 18*SIN(14*x)/(7*SIN(14*x)^2+7*COS(14*x)^2+14*COS (14*x)+7) (C4) diff(%,x)f; (D4) 252*COS(14*x)/(7*SIN(14*x)^2+7*COS(14*x)^2+14*COS (14*x)+7)+3528*SIN(14*x)^2/(7*SIN(14*x)^2+7*COS(14*x) ^2+14*COS(14*x)+7)^29/COS(7*x)^2 (C5) rat(exponentialize(%)); (D5) 0 Barton  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727032&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030424 22:08:15

Bugs item #727032, was opened at 20030424 12:29 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727032&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: Fix for 5.9.0 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Too long integral result: integrate((9/cos(7*x)^2),x); Initial Comment: Hi, I think that: integrate((9/cos(7*x)^2),x); should give: 9*tan(7*x)/7 but I get a very long result that I don't know if is correct (i think not because if i try to derive it I don't get the original function...). Details about Maxima version:  Maxima Version: 5.9.0 Maxima Build date: 16:22 4/1/2003 host type: i686pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: CLISP lispimplementationversion: 2.29 (released 20020725) (built 3258193367) (memory 3258195754)   Comment By: Barton Willis (willisb) Date: 20030424 17:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=570592 I believe the antiderivative is correct; it's possible to show that the derivative of the antiderivative equals the integrand. But the simplification isn't automatic. (C1) display2d : false; (D1) FALSE (C2) f : 9 / (cos(7*x))^2; (D2) 9/COS(7*x)^2 (C3) integrate(f,x); (D3) 18*SIN(14*x)/(7*SIN(14*x)^2+7*COS(14*x)^2+14*COS (14*x)+7) (C4) diff(%,x)f; (D4) 252*COS(14*x)/(7*SIN(14*x)^2+7*COS(14*x)^2+14*COS (14*x)+7)+3528*SIN(14*x)^2/(7*SIN(14*x)^2+7*COS(14*x) ^2+14*COS(14*x)+7)^29/COS(7*x)^2 (C5) rat(exponentialize(%)); (D5) 0 Barton  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727032&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030424 17:29:08

Bugs item #727032, was opened at 20030424 10:29 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727032&group_id=4933 Category: Lisp Core Group: Fix for 5.9.0 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Too long integral result: integrate((9/cos(7*x)^2),x); Initial Comment: Hi, I think that: integrate((9/cos(7*x)^2),x); should give: 9*tan(7*x)/7 but I get a very long result that I don't know if is correct (i think not because if i try to derive it I don't get the original function...). Details about Maxima version:  Maxima Version: 5.9.0 Maxima Build date: 16:22 4/1/2003 host type: i686pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: CLISP lispimplementationversion: 2.29 (released 20020725) (built 3258193367) (memory 3258195754)   You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=727032&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030423 18:16:52

Bugs item #726420, was opened at 20030423 13:16 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=726420&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisb) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: floats with missing exponents / really minor Initial Comment: Some software allows the exponent of a float to default to zero. In Maxima, this isn't the case (C1) 4.2d; (D1) 4.2D+ (C2) 4.2e; (D2) 4.2E+ (C3) ?print(%); 4.2E+ (D3) 4.2E+ (C4) 4.2b; Error: Unexpected end of #<stringinput stream from "">. Fast links are on: do (si::usefastlinks nil) for debugging Error signalled by MACSYMATOPLEVEL. Broken at MREADRAW. Type :H for Help. MAXIMA>> Maxima version: 5.9.0 Maxima build date: 19:10 2/9/2003 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: Kyoto Common Lisp lispimplementationversion: GCL25.0 Not really a bug, but ... Barton  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=726420&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030420 00:27:40

Bugs item #724426, was opened at 20030420 00:27 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=724426&group_id=4933 Category: Xmaxima Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: asubedi (asubedi) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: "starting maxima timed out" when running xmaxima Initial Comment: C1) ***  UNIX error 22 (EINVAL): Invalid argument The following restarts are available: R1 = Macsyma toplevel 1. Break [1]> My system, latest Gentoo. $ clisp version GNU CLISP 2.30 (released 20020915) (built 3259773810) (memory 3259774028) Features: (CLOS LOOP COMPILER CLISP ANSICL COMMONLISP LISP=CL INTERPRETER SOCKETS GENERICSTREAMS LOGICALPATHNAMES SCREEN FFI UNICODE BASECHAR=CHARACTER SYSCALLS PC386 UNIX) $ maxima version Maxima 5.9.0 >>Detailed crap<< $ xmaxima i i i i i i i ooooo o ooooooo ooooo ooooo I I I I I I I 8 8 8 8 8 o 8 8 I \ `+' / I 8 8 8 8 8 8 \ `+' / 8 8 8 ooooo 8oooo `____' 8 8 8 8 8  8 o 8 8 o 8 8 + ooooo 8oooooo ooo8ooo ooooo 8 Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Michael Stoll 1992, 1993 Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Marcus Daniels 19941997 Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Pierpaolo Bernardi, Sam Steingold 1998 Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Sam Steingold 19992002 Maxima 5.9.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. This is a development version of Maxima. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (C1) xeo@... xeo $ asdf bash: asdf: command not found xeo@... xeo $ asdf ***  UNIX error 22 (EINVAL): Invalid argument The following restarts are available: R1 = Macsyma toplevel ***  UNIX error 5 (EIO): I/O error The following restarts are available: R1 = Macsyma toplevel 1. Break [1]> USER[2]> Bye.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=724426&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030417 18:53:23

Bugs item #721575, was opened at 20030414 23:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=721575&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 2/sqrt(2) doesn't simplify Initial Comment: 2/sqrt(2) doesn't simplify. Similarly for 2/2^(2/3). On the other hand, x/sqrt(x) => sqrt(x). And of course sqrt(2) simplifies to itself  it doesn't become 2/sqrt(2)!! I believe the original examples should simplify to sqrt(2) and 2^(1/3). Note that 2^(4/3) => 2*2^(1/3) (the current behavior) is probably CORRECT, in order to make things like 10^(10/3) intelligible. Or is there something I'm missing? Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0 mingw32 Windows 2000 Athlon  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030417 14:53 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Yes, of course there are ways within Maxima to perform this simplification. But it should be the default in the general simplifer. The logic already appears to be in the general simplifier, but there is a bug in this particular case. If the general simplifier's philosophy were to leave such things untouched, why does it simplify x/sqrt(x) and the like?  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisb) Date: 20030417 14:44 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=570592 Try ratsimp with algebraic : true (C1) z : 2/sqrt(2); (D1) 2/SQRT(2) (C2) ratsimp(z); (D2) 2/SQRT(2) (C3) ratsimp(z),algebraic; (D3) SQRT(2) (C4) z : 2/2^(2/3); (D4) 2/2^(2/3) (C5) ratsimp(z); (D5) 2/2^(2/3) (C6) ratsimp(z),algebraic; (D6) 2^(1/3) (C7)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=721575&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030417 18:44:10

Bugs item #721575, was opened at 20030414 22:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=721575&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 2/sqrt(2) doesn't simplify Initial Comment: 2/sqrt(2) doesn't simplify. Similarly for 2/2^(2/3). On the other hand, x/sqrt(x) => sqrt(x). And of course sqrt(2) simplifies to itself  it doesn't become 2/sqrt(2)!! I believe the original examples should simplify to sqrt(2) and 2^(1/3). Note that 2^(4/3) => 2*2^(1/3) (the current behavior) is probably CORRECT, in order to make things like 10^(10/3) intelligible. Or is there something I'm missing? Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0 mingw32 Windows 2000 Athlon  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisb) Date: 20030417 13:44 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=570592 Try ratsimp with algebraic : true (C1) z : 2/sqrt(2); (D1) 2/SQRT(2) (C2) ratsimp(z); (D2) 2/SQRT(2) (C3) ratsimp(z),algebraic; (D3) SQRT(2) (C4) z : 2/2^(2/3); (D4) 2/2^(2/3) (C5) ratsimp(z); (D5) 2/2^(2/3) (C6) ratsimp(z),algebraic; (D6) 2^(1/3) (C7)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=721575&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030415 03:28:36

Bugs item #721575, was opened at 20030414 23:45 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=721575&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 2/sqrt(2) doesn't simplify Initial Comment: 2/sqrt(2) doesn't simplify. Similarly for 2/2^(2/3). On the other hand, x/sqrt(x) => sqrt(x). And of course sqrt(2) simplifies to itself  it doesn't become 2/sqrt(2)!! I believe the original examples should simplify to sqrt(2) and 2^(1/3). Note that 2^(4/3) => 2*2^(1/3) (the current behavior) is probably CORRECT, in order to make things like 10^(10/3) intelligible. Or is there something I'm missing? Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0 mingw32 Windows 2000 Athlon  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=721575&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030414 18:04:21

Bugs item #718574, was opened at 20030409 16:43 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=718574&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Bessel_J or %J ??? Maxima not consistent Initial Comment: Maxima appears to use *both* the notation Bessel_J[i] (x) and %J[i](x) to denote the Bessel Jfunction. Bessel_J is used only in the file bessel.lisp, and %J everywhere else (comm, hyp, hypgeo, ode2). Could we unify these? Or is there some reason to keep them separate?  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20030414 14:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Don't know the history, but it's been that way for as long as I can remember. I think we should unify them to just one or the other. Bessel_J is better because it's more explicit, but %J is closer to the typical math notation.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=718574&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030414 02:03:24

Bugs item #720875, was opened at 20030413 22:19 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=720875&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Improving Compar: trig, max, etc. Initial Comment: Currently, sign(cos(x)1) => pnz (should be nz) sign(max(x,1)) => pnz (should be pos) etc. It would be nice if COMPAR knew a few things about the range of common functions, e.g. that 1 <= sin/cos(x) <= 1, %pi/2 < atan(x) < %pi/2, %pi/2 <= asin(x) <= % pi/2, 0<=acos(x)<=%pi, 1 <= cosh(x), 1 < tanh(x) < 1,  1 <= signum(x) <= 1, etc. It does know that 0< exp(x) and 0<=abs(x), for example   though this is specialcased, not tabledriven. But it should also know about max, min. And that entier(x) <= x.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=720875&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030412 01:39:37

Bugs item #719832, was opened at 20030411 13:53 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719832&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(exp(x*%i)*x,x,inf) => UND Initial Comment: limit(exp(x*%i)*x,x,inf) => UND NO! Should be INFINITY  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030411 21:55 Message: 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  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisb) Date: 20030411 21:51 Message: 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  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719832&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030412 01:34:17

Bugs item #719832, was opened at 20030411 12:53 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719832&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(exp(x*%i)*x,x,inf) => UND Initial Comment: limit(exp(x*%i)*x,x,inf) => UND NO! Should be INFINITY  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisb) Date: 20030411 20:51 Message: 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  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719832&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030412 01:06:35

Bugs item #720025, was opened at 20030411 21:22 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=720025&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 2 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: GCD should allow any number of args Initial Comment: Currently, the gcd function only allows two arguments. Since it is commutative and associative, it should be nary. gcd() => 1; gcd(x)=> x, gcd(x,y,z) == gcd(x,gcd (y,z)) == gcd(gcd(x,y),z) This would allow useful operations like apply(gcd,[...])  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=720025&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030411 22:19:06

Bugs item #719968, was opened at 20030411 18:36 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719968&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: No SIMP function Initial Comment: The info file documents a function SIMP, which "causes exp to be simplified regardless of the setting of the switch SIMP which inhibits simplification if FALSE". But there is no such function defined. It is also not clear if this is supposed to force resimplification of the whole expression, or only the part without SIMP flags.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719968&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030411 22:07:21

Bugs item #719964, was opened at 20030411 18:23 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719964&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Filename syntax  CRASH Initial Comment: batch("c:\temp\s.mac"); causes an infinite loop (!!!). batch("c:\temp\s.mac") works fine. batch("c:/temp/s.mac") does not work. Most Windows programs nowadays accept both backslashes (Windows convention) or forward slashes (Unix convention) in filenames. This is an especially good idea since backslashes require quoting in Maxima. Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0 mingw32 Windows 2000 Athlon  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719964&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030411 19:52:19

Bugs item #671574, was opened at 20030120 22:59 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=671574&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limits involving x*atan(x) wrong Initial Comment: limit(x*atan(x)/(x+1),x,inf) => %i * log(1)/2 NO! tlimit correctly gets %pi/2. limit(x*atan(x)log(x),x,inf) => minf NO! tlimit correctly gets inf  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030411 16:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Another interesting case: expr: x*(atan(x)%pi/2) limit(expr,x,inf) => minf NO! tlimit(expr,x,inf) => 1 OK! Maxima 5.9.0  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030120 23:00 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Maxima 5.5 on Windows  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=671574&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030411 17:37:26

Bugs item #719832, was opened at 20030411 13:53 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719832&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(exp(x*%i)*x,x,inf) => UND Initial Comment: limit(exp(x*%i)*x,x,inf) => UND NO! Should be INFINITY  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=719832&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030409 20:26:32

Bugs item #718574, was opened at 20030409 16:43 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=718574&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Bessel_J or %J ??? Maxima not consistent Initial Comment: Maxima appears to use *both* the notation Bessel_J[i] (x) and %J[i](x) to denote the Bessel Jfunction. Bessel_J is used only in the file bessel.lisp, and %J everywhere else (comm, hyp, hypgeo, ode2). Could we unify these? Or is there some reason to keep them separate?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=718574&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030408 02:33:07

Bugs item #701364, was opened at 20030311 01:36 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=701364&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: desolve(diff(y(x),x)=(42*x)/(3*y^25),y(x)); WRONG Initial Comment: (C4) desolve(diff(y(x),x)=(42*x)/(3*y^25),y(x)); 2 x 4 x (D4) y(x) =   +  + y(0) 2 2 3 y  5 3 y  5 it should be 2 x 4 x (D4) y(x) =   +  + y(0) 2 2 y  5 y  5  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030311 07:57 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 This is not a bug in desolve. As the documentation says, desolve requires functional dependencies to be explicit  there is no connection between the function y(x) and the variable y. It turns out that desolve can't solve this equation, but ode2 claims to. I don't know if its solution is correct.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=701364&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030408 02:21:21

Bugs item #717243, was opened at 20030407 22:17 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=717243&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: taylor problems with 2^x at infinity Initial Comment: taylor(2^x+3^x,x,inf,2) => Break: two equal vars generated (a debug break) Normal users should never see debug breaks.... Similarly for tlimit(2^x+3^x,x,inf). More surprisingly, you also get a debug break for: taylor(2^x/3^x,x,inf,2)*2 => Break: bad singular datum Note that here, unlike the previous case, there is absolutely no mathematical subtlety. There are also cases that give incorrect answers, not errors: taylor(2^x,x,inf,10)*2 => 2 + ... NO! taylor(2^x,x,inf,2)*2^x => 1/%e^(log(2)*x) NO! Maxima 5.9.0 GCL 2.5.0 mingw32 Windows 2000 Athlon  >Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030407 22:36 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Similar problems turn up for log(x),x=0: tl: taylor(log(x),x,0,3) => log(x)+... OK 2*tl == tl+1 => 2+... NO! tl^2 => 1+... NO! tl*log(x) => log(x)+... NO! tl  log(x) => log(x)+1+... NO!  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=717243&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20030408 02:02:31

Bugs item #717243, was opened at 20030407 22:17 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=717243&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: taylor problems with 2^x at infinity Initial Comment: taylor(2^x+3^x,x,inf,2) => Break: two equal vars generated (a debug break) Normal users should never see debug breaks.... Similarly for tlimit(2^x+3^x,x,inf). More surprisingly, you also get a debug break for: taylor(2^x/3^x,x,inf,2)*2 => Break: bad singular datum Note that here, unlike the previous case, there is absolutely no mathematical subtlety. There are also cases that give incorrect answers, not errors: taylor(2^x,x,inf,10)*2 => 2 + ... NO! taylor(2^x,x,inf,2)*2^x => 1/%e^(log(2)*x) NO! Maxima 5.9.0 GCL 2.5.0 mingw32 Windows 2000 Athlon  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=717243&group_id=4933 