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}
(27) 
_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 


1
(3) 
2
(7) 
3
(3) 
4

5
(1) 
6
(2) 
7
(2) 
8

9
(8) 
10
(3) 
11
(2) 
12

13
(2) 
14

15

16

17
(1) 
18
(1) 
19
(4) 
20
(6) 
21
(7) 
22
(7) 
23
(13) 
24
(2) 
25
(6) 
26

27

28

29

30





From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041119 23:24:39

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 17:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 15:24 Message: Logged In: NO I don't trust you. You can't obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations ( or we don't have the same definition of elementary row operations ). if you don't know that the determinant must match, look at http://www.mathematicsonline.org/kurse/kurs10/seite151.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similar. You will learn that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix are similar ( first link) and that two similar matrix have the same determinant (second and third links). I've found the links with a simple google search . Next time, please search before you ask  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 13:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I can obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations. Please cite a reference that says the determinant must match.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 12:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 15:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041119 22:35:20

Bugs item #1052308, was opened at 20041022 12:19 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1052308&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(erf(n*x),n,inf) depends on n (x=0) Initial Comment: assume(equal(zz,0))$ limit(erf(n*zz),n,inf) => erf(n*zz) A limit result should be independent of the dummy variable!  in this case result is 0. For other functions, limit gets this right: makelist( limit(f(zz*x),x,inf) , f, [sin,exp,gamma,atan,erf] ) => [0, 1, 1, 0, ERF(x zz)] Limit/erf works correctly for zz>0 and zz<0.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 17:35 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This is caused by simplim%erf%tanh taking the default branch and returning: (simplify (list (ncons fn) arg)) I think that "arg" should really be "arglim", because the arg has the known limit arglim, and erf (and tanh) don't have singularities anywhere to worry about.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1052308&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041119 21:56:47

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 20:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041119 16:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 I can obtain the desired matrix via elementary row operations. Please cite a reference that says the determinant must match.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 15:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 18:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20041119 20:19:00

Bugs item #1064238, was opened at 20041110 17:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: triangularize gives wrong results Initial Comment: for example : (%i1) a:matrix([4,0,2],[0,1,0],[5,1,3]); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 5 1 3 ] (%i2) determinant(a); (%o2)  2 (%i3) t:triangularize(a); [  4 0  2 ] [ ] (%o3) [ 0  4 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0  2 ] a and t doesn't even have the same determinant.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20041119 12:18 Message: Logged In: NO to rtoy "Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix." This is a joke ? You know [1 2 3],[0,5,6],[0,0,7] is too an upper triangular matrix. I thought the command triangularize(a) gives a triangular form of the matrix a an not an random upper triangular matrix. It seems you didn't read my comment "a and t doesn't even have the same determinant." . I hope you know that a matrix and a triangular form of this matrix should have the same determinant.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041111 15:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Why is this wrong? The result is an upper triangular matrix.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1064238&group_id=4933 