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}
(39) 
_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 


1

2
(1) 
3

4
(2) 
5
(6) 
6
(11) 
7
(1) 
8
(3) 
9
(4) 
10
(9) 
11

12

13

14
(4) 
15

16

17
(8) 
18

19
(1) 
20

21
(2) 
22

23

24

25

26
(1) 
27

28
(2) 
29
(1) 
30

31




From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031217 19:57:34

Bugs item #861887, was opened at 20031217 14:57 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=861887&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Simplifying (a*t+a)^q/(b*t+b)^r Initial Comment: This report ties together the discussion of several other bug reports. Fixing the individual bugs reported separately will be a good thing, but it will also be good to keep the big picture in mind, and make sure that all these cases are handled properly by the system. It has been rather frustrating trying to simplify what are, after all, rather simple cases.  Consider rad(a,b,q,r):= (a*t+a)^q/(b*t+b)^r This is obviously equivalent to a^q/b^r * (t+1)^(qr). In Maxima, when a and b are equal, this simplifies nicely and automatically: rad(5,5,q,r) => (5*t+5)^(qr) However, when a and b are not equal (e.g. a=1 and b= 1), simplification is not automatic. So far, so good  default simplification isn't supposed to perform GCD's; it doesn't even simplify rad(a,b,1,1) to a/b. So what functions should we use to simplify? I can think of four: ratsimp, factor, rootscontract, and radcan. (In all that follows, I have gcd:'spmod and algebraic:true.) Ratsimp has the annoying (but expected) property of expanding out: ratsimp(rad(1,1,3,7)) => 1/(t^4+4*t^3+6*t^2+4*t+1) and still doesn't reduce to simplest form for fractional exponents: ratsimp(rad(1,1,1/2,2)) => SQRT(t+1)/(t^2+2*t+1) Rootscontract/rootconmode:all sometimes works well: rootall(ex):=block([rootsconmode:all],rootscontract (ex))$ rootall(rad(1,1,3/7,2/5)) => (t + 1)^(1/35) but other times has an annoying tendency to expand unnecessarily: rootall(rad(1,1,7/13,3/11)) => (t^3838*t^37703*t^36......)^(1/143) instead of (t+1)^(38/143) (reported as bug 861870) It also does not work at all when either p or q is an integer: rootall(rad(1,1,1/2,1)) => SQRT(t+1)/(t1) Factor is sometimes useful: factor(rad(1,2,2/3,1/3)) => (t+1)^(1/3)/2^(1/3) scanmap/factor is sometimes better, but both fail sometimes, too: factor(rad(1,1,100,300/7)) => (t+1)^58/(t1)^(6/7) (see bugs 861827 and 861880) scanmap/factor sometimes helps, but not in this case. None of these approaches alone simplifies rad(1, 1,9/2,3/2) to %i*(t+1)^3, though factor(radcan(...)) does, as does rectform(...). Consider also map(radcan, [1/SQRT(t+1),SQRT(t1)/(t+1),SQRT (t+1)/(t1),1/SQRT(t1)]) The most surprising difference is in the treatment of rad (1,1,1/2,1) and rad(1,1,1/2,1). Ratsimp, Factor, and Radcan all correctly handle rad(1,1,...), and all fail on rad(1,1,...). On the other hand, they work identically on rad(2,3,...) and rad(3,2,...). Apparently they are "uncomfortable" with pulling out %I. The only way I have found to simplify rad(1,1,1/2,1) and rad(1,1,1,1/2)  that is, where the term with the square root is negative  is to first use rectform, e.g. factor(rectform(rad(1,1,1/2,1)))  but that only works if you respond that t+1 is positive.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861887&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031217 19:53:04

Bugs item #861880, was opened at 20031217 14:53 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=861880&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: factor((t1)^(2/3)) also scanmap/substpart Initial Comment: factor((2*t+2)^(2/3) ) => 2^(2/3)*(t+1)^(2/3) OK factor((2*t2)^(2/3) ) => 2^(2/3)*(t+1)^(2/3) OK (note that (1)^(2/3)=1) But factor((t1)^(2/3)) => (t1)^(2/3) ??? should be (t+1)^(2/3) and these don't work, either: scanmap(factor,(t1)^(2/3)) scanmap(factor,(t1)^(2/3),bottomup) substpart(factor(piece),(t1)^(2/3),1) though peculiarly (and correctly), this does: factor(t1)^(2/3) => (t+1)^(2/3)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861880&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031217 19:33:12

Bugs item #861871, was opened at 20031217 14:29 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861871&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None >Status: Deleted >Resolution: Duplicate Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: rootscontract expands unnecessarily Initial Comment: rootscontract((4*t+4)^(1/2)/(32*t+32)^(1/5)), rootsconmode:all => (t^3+3*t^2+3*t+1)^(1/10) instead of (t+1)^(3/10) There is no good reason for it to be expanding the wole thing when there is a nontrivial gcd. At worst, it could give the result in the form: (4*t+4)^(3/10)/8^(1/5) Then again, there doesn't seem to be any equivalent of rootscontract for *integral* powers. How do you simplify (4*t+4)^20/(t+1)^20 to 2^40 without using factor (which in general of course is much more expensive than GCD)?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861871&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031217 19:33:00

Bugs item #861873, was opened at 20031217 14:29 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by macrakis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861873&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None >Status: Deleted >Resolution: Duplicate Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: rootscontract expands unnecessarily Initial Comment: rootscontract((4*t+4)^(1/2)/(32*t+32)^(1/5)), rootsconmode:all => (t^3+3*t^2+3*t+1)^(1/10) instead of (t+1)^(3/10) There is no good reason for it to be expanding the wole thing when there is a nontrivial gcd. At worst, it could give the result in the form: (4*t+4)^(3/10)/8^(1/5) Then again, there doesn't seem to be any equivalent of rootscontract for *integral* powers. How do you simplify (4*t+4)^20/(t+1)^20 to 2^40 without using factor (which in general of course is much more expensive than GCD)?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861873&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031217 19:32:08

Bugs item #861873, was opened at 20031217 14:29 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=861873&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: rootscontract expands unnecessarily Initial Comment: rootscontract((4*t+4)^(1/2)/(32*t+32)^(1/5)), rootsconmode:all => (t^3+3*t^2+3*t+1)^(1/10) instead of (t+1)^(3/10) There is no good reason for it to be expanding the wole thing when there is a nontrivial gcd. At worst, it could give the result in the form: (4*t+4)^(3/10)/8^(1/5) Then again, there doesn't seem to be any equivalent of rootscontract for *integral* powers. How do you simplify (4*t+4)^20/(t+1)^20 to 2^40 without using factor (which in general of course is much more expensive than GCD)?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861873&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031217 19:32:08

Bugs item #861871, was opened at 20031217 14:29 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=861871&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: rootscontract expands unnecessarily Initial Comment: rootscontract((4*t+4)^(1/2)/(32*t+32)^(1/5)), rootsconmode:all => (t^3+3*t^2+3*t+1)^(1/10) instead of (t+1)^(3/10) There is no good reason for it to be expanding the wole thing when there is a nontrivial gcd. At worst, it could give the result in the form: (4*t+4)^(3/10)/8^(1/5) Then again, there doesn't seem to be any equivalent of rootscontract for *integral* powers. How do you simplify (4*t+4)^20/(t+1)^20 to 2^40 without using factor (which in general of course is much more expensive than GCD)?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861871&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031217 19:32:08

Bugs item #861870, was opened at 20031217 14:28 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=861870&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: rootscontract expands unnecessarily Initial Comment: rootscontract((4*t+4)^(1/2)/(32*t+32)^(1/5)), rootsconmode:all => (t^3+3*t^2+3*t+1)^(1/10) instead of (t+1)^(3/10) There is no good reason for it to be expanding the wole thing when there is a nontrivial gcd. At worst, it could give the result in the form: (4*t+4)^(3/10)/8^(1/5) Then again, there doesn't seem to be any equivalent of rootscontract for *integral* powers. How do you simplify (4*t+4)^20/(t+1)^20 to 2^40 without using factor (which in general of course is much more expensive than GCD)?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861870&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031217 18:21:46

Bugs item #861827, was opened at 20031217 13:21 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=861827&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Factor doesn't look inside fractional power Initial Comment: factor(sqrt(x^21)) => doesn't factor should be sqrt(x1)*sqrt(x+1) factor((t^2+2*t+1)^(1/3)) => doesn't factor should be (t+1)^(2/3) and perhaps the most surprising: factor(sqrt(t^2+2*t+1)) => doesn't factor should be (t+1) or abs(t+1) Workaround is to use scanmap(factor,expr). I am not suggesting that factor should factor all subexpressions (like scanmap). In these cases, it is a toplevel factorization that is being missed.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=861827&group_id=4933 