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}
(21) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 






1
(3) 
2
(9) 
3
(1) 
4
(7) 
5
(4) 
6
(2) 
7
(6) 
8
(2) 
9
(2) 
10
(4) 
11
(3) 
12

13
(11) 
14
(1) 
15
(4) 
16

17

18
(1) 
19
(5) 
20

21
(3) 
22
(2) 
23
(1) 
24

25
(1) 
26

27
(4) 
28
(1) 
29
(11) 
30
(2) 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070619 17:38:55

Bugs item #1290363, was opened at 20050913 14:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1290363&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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Vadim V. Zhytnikov (vvzhy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate((tan(x)^2+1)/tan(x),x,%pi/6,%pi/3)  error Initial Comment: (%i1) integrate((tan(x)^2+1)/tan(x),x,%pi/6,%pi/3); `sign' called on an imaginary argument: 1/4 ( 1)  an error. Quitting. To debug this try debugmode(true); Right result is log(3).  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070619 13:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO This no longer produces an error. After asking if sin(x+%pi/6) is positive and if sin(x+%pi/3) is positive (I answered "yes"), maxima says the answer is log(sqrt(3)/2)+log(4)/2+log(2)+log(3/4)/2 logcontract converts this to log(9)/2, which is log(3). Closing this bug. Should another bug be opened because maxima asks these questions? The questions come from limit, via sincosintsubs.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20060216 09:35 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This integral is converted to integrate((1+tan(x+%pi/6)^2)/tan(x+%pi/6),x,0,%pi/6) Eventually, rischint is called and the error comes from somewhere in rischint.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1290363&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070619 17:30:23

Bugs item #1468951, was opened at 20060411 21:28 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1468951&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: Pending Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Error in "integrate" output (ver. 5.9.3) Initial Comment: Attempting to evaluate integral of a product of bessel and trigonometric function. Obtained following output (error is given in %o5): %i1) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) w:bessel_j(0,2.4048*(r/R0))*cos(%pi*(z/H)); (%o2) bessel_j(0,2.4048*r/R0)*cos(%pi*z/H) (%i3) phi1:c1*w; (%o3) bessel_j(0,2.4048*r/R0)*c1*cos(%pi*z/H) (%i4) eq1:(1/r)*diff(r*diff(phi1,r,1))+diff(phi1,z,2)+Bsq*phi1=0; (%o4) ((5.78306304*c1*r^2*cos(%pi*z/H) *(bessel_j(0,2.4048*r/R0) .4158349966733201*bessel_j(1,2.4048*r/R0)*R0/r) /R0^3 +2.4048*bessel_j(1,2.4048*r/R0)*c1*r*cos(%pi*z/H)/R0^2) *del(R0) 2.4048*%pi*bessel_j(1,2.4048*r/R0)*c1*r*z*sin(%pi*z/H)*del(H)/(H^2*R0) +2.4048*%pi*bessel_j(1,2.4048*r/R0)*c1*r*sin(%pi*z/H)*del(z)/(H*R0) +(5.78306304*c1*r*cos(%pi*z/H) *(bessel_j(0,2.4048*r/R0) .4158349966733201*bessel_j(1,2.4048*r/R0)*R0/r) /R0^2 2.4048*bessel_j(1,2.4048*r/R0)*c1*cos(%pi*z/H)/R0) *del(r)2.4048*bessel_j(1,2.4048*r/R0)*r*cos(%pi*z/H)*del(c1)/R0) /r %pi^2*bessel_j(0,2.4048*r/R0)*c1*cos(%pi*z/H)/H^2 +bessel_j(0,2.4048*r/R0)*Bsq*c1*cos(%pi*z/H) = 0 (%i5) int1:integrate(integrate(eq1*w*r,r,0,R0),z,0,H); `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 5.78306304 by 16048//2775 = 5.783063063063064 `rat' replaced .4158349966733201 by 625//1503 = 0.41583499667332 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 5.78306304 by 16048//2775 = 5.783063063063064 `rat' replaced .4158349966733201 by 625//1503 = 0.41583499667332 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 5.78306304 by 16048//2775 = 5.78306306306306 `rat' replaced 0.41583499667332 by 625//1503 = 0.41583499667332 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 5.78306304 by 16048//2775 = 5.783063063063064 `rat' replaced 0.41583499667332 by 625//1503 = 0.41583499667332 Is R0 positive, negative, or zero? pos; `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 5.78306304 by 16048//2775 = 5.78306306306306 `rat' replaced 0.41583499667332 by 625//1503 = 0.41583499667332 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 5.78306304 by 16048//2775 = 5.783063063063064 `rat' replaced 0.41583499667332 by 625//1503 = 0.41583499667332 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 `rat' replaced 2.4048 by 1503//625 = 2.4048 (%o5) H*false = 0 (%i6) email address: ebayaccount@...  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070619 13:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO I don't think this is an integration problem but really an ODE problem, as Robert mentions. Marking this as pending so it will be autoclosed in a couple of weeks.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060411 22:10 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 After trying this example a bit, I believe eq1 wants to be solved with the function ode2 instead of integrate (because integrate doesn't understand about stuff like dy/dx appearing in integrands, and it doesn't like <expr> = 0, it just wants <expr>). Also to get the appropriate symbolic differentials like dfoo/dr you *might* need to put depends (foo, r); before the equation (to enable diff (foo, r); to come out as dfoo/dr). A couple of ideas to help focus debugging in general. (1) Replace the floats with equivalent rationals, or better still replace them with 1's. (2) Try to find a simpler version of the example. Try posting a message to the mailing list (http://maxima.sf.net/maximalist.html), preferably after simplifying the example. Some people know a lot more about Maxima's capabilities for diff eq's.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1468951&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070619 17:28:11

Bugs item #657382, was opened at 20021221 20:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=657382&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: 4 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: defint/limit infinite loop Initial Comment: integrate(1/(x^51),x,1,inf) appears to get into an infinite loop inside $limit (over 4 hours CPU).  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070619 13:27 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO If ININTERVAL in defint.lisp is slightly modified to use ASKGREAT instead of ASKGREATEQ, where ASKGREAT checks if x > y instead of x >= y, then maxima quickly says the integral is divergent. I think this is correct since 1/(x^51) has a partial fraction expansion of 1/5/(x1) + <stuff>. Do not know if this change is the correct change or not.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 14:31 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO FWIW, this still happens in 5.12 cvs. What's happening is that maxima has computed the antiderivative correctly and is now trying to carefully substitute in the limits of integration to make sure everything is on the right sheet. This is basically done in takeprincipal and intsubs. I don't understand why maxima does the limit essentially twice like limit(anti,x,1+eps,plus)  limit(anti,x,1eps,minus). This seems to be where maxima is getting stuck. If it were to finish, maxima would then go and take the limit as eps goes to zero from above. Perhaps if the pole is at one of the limits of integration as it is here, maxima should do something else? I think the current code assumes the pole is within the integration interval.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20021221 20:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Sorry,. I forgot to mention that this is under 5.5 GCL/Windows 2000.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=657382&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070619 13:34:14

Bugs item #1732315, was opened at 20070606 13:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1732315&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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: David Ronis (ronis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: trigrat dies on a matrix Initial Comment: I want to apply trigrat to the elements of a matrix, for example: p1:matrix([1,0],[0,1]); p2:matrix([0,1],[1,0]); p3:matrix([0,1],[1,0]); S:s1*p1+s2*p2+s3*p3; M:(ident(2)coth(del*t/2)/del*S); trigrat(%); However, when I try to run this I get: (%i6) trigrat(%); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: CAR: 1 is not a list Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. (I'm using a fairly recent CVS version and clisp) This may be related to bug 156234 David  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070619 07:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Patch below (or something close to it) was committed as r1.8 share/trigonometric/trigrat.lisp. Closing this report as fixed.  Comment By: David Ronis (ronis) Date: 20070607 09:31 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=609364 Originator: YES Hi Robert, Although I had trouble applying the patch (I did it manually in the end). It seems to have done the trick. Thanks  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070606 19:49 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Here's a patch which, I hope, resolves this problem and 1562340. I'll apply this in a day or two unless I hear otherwise. I wonder if there is a better way to know when to map over the expression (better than just enumerating the operators for which it is preferred).  share/trigonometry/trigrat.lisp 20070502 23:33:35.000000000 0600 +++ /tmp/trigrat.lisp 20070606 19:45:25.000000000 0600 @@ 22,7 +22,14 @@ (setq $lg (cons var $lg)) (rplaca lvar var))))) #$trigrat(exp):= block([e,n,d,lg,f,lexp,ls,d2,l2,alg,gcd1], +#$trigrat_equationp (e) := + not atom (e) + and member (op (e), ["=", "#", "<", "<=", ">=", ">"])$ + +#$trigrat(exp):= + if matrixp (exp) or listp (exp) or setp (exp) or trigrat_equationp (exp) + then map (trigrat, exp) + else block([e,n,d,lg,f,lexp,ls,d2,l2,alg,gcd1], declare(d2,special,lg,special,lexp,special), alg:algebraic,gcd1:gcd, algebraic:true,gcd:subres,  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070606 19:19 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO This appears to be the same bug as 1562340. The problem could be resolved by having trigrat automatically distribute over matrix (and list, and =, and set, and anything else we can think of; it would be nice to have some way to indicate "foo distributes over bar" with a property, although it is OK by me to fix this bug by just pasting the necessary logic into trigrat).  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1732315&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070619 13:31:15

Bugs item #1738169, was opened at 20070615 17:40 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1738169&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: Harald Geyer (hgeyer) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: %piargs is not documented Initial Comment: There is a flag %piargs which defaults to true. It is mentioned in the testsuite, but it is not mentioned in the documentation.  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070619 07:31 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO I wrote some documentation (in doc/info/Trigonometric.texi) for %piargs and %iargs. Closing this report as fixed.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1738169&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070618 18:26:33

Bugs item #1569644, was opened at 20061003 02:15 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by hgeyer You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1569644&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: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: expand(ceiling(...)) doesn't look inside Initial Comment: expand(ceiling(x*(x1))) doesn't expand the product.  Comment By: Harald Geyer (hgeyer) Date: 20070618 20:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=929336 Originator: NO I can't reproduce this bug with maxima 5.12.0 CLISP. I guess this problem has been fixed in the meanwhile. I think this bug report should be closed. Regards, Harald  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20061003 02:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=895922 Deleting the simp flag check in simpceiling fixes this bug. I assume that all the other functions in nummod.lisp have similar bugs. I'll fix these bugs.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1569644&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070615 23:40:21

Bugs item #1738169, was opened at 20070616 01:40 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=1738169&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: Harald Geyer (hgeyer) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: %piargs is not documented Initial Comment: There is a flag %piargs which defaults to true. It is mentioned in the testsuite, but it is not mentioned in the documentation.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1738169&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070615 20:48:35

Bugs item #1735401, was opened at 20070611 16:27 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by woollett You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1735401&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 Group: None Status: Closed Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Ted Woollett (woollett) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: makelist( ) inside function definition Initial Comment: Attempts to use makelist function inside a user defined function: Maxima 5.12.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net Using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.8 (aka GCL) /* 1 */ (%i1) table1(expr, n, n1, n2) := ( z : makelist(expr, n, n1,n2 ), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i2) table1(n^2, n, 1, 3)$ 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 2 */ (%i3) table2(expr,n,n1,n2) := ( print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," n1 = ",n1," n2 = ",n2), z : makelist(expr,n,n1,n2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i4) table2(n^2,n,1,3)$ 2 expr = n n = n n1 = 1 n2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 3 */ (%i5) table3(expr,n,n1,n2) := block([z], print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," n1 = ",n1," n2 = ",n2), z : makelist(expr,n,n1,n2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i6) table3(n^2,n,1,3)$ 2 expr = n n = n n1 = 1 n2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 4 */ (%i7) table4(expr,n,n1,n2) := block([z,m1:n1, m2:n2], print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," m1 = ",m1," m2 = ",m2 ), z : makelist(expr, n, m1, m2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i8) table4(n^2, n, 1, 3)$ 2 expr = n n = n m1 = 1 m2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] I am assuming "expr" is not a reserved word in Maxima. Perhaps I am not using corrent passage of arguments??  Comment By: Ted Woollett (woollett) Date: 20070615 13:48 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1806103 Originator: YES Can we add a comment after a thread is "closed"?? Thanks for the explanation of forcing evaluation with ev(). I clearly need to pay closer attention to R. Dodier's "Minimal Maxima" discussion of these issues. Was initially trying to make something like Mathematica's Table function. The following works but retains brackets if expr is [n, n^2]. (%i7) mytable(expr,n, [nval] ) := map( disp, ( if length(nval) = 2 then makelist( ev(expr),n, nval[1], nval[2] ) else makelist( ev(expr) , n, nval[1] ) ) ) ;  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070614 18:24 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO It turns out that the observed behavior is to be expected. Maxima does not try as much as it can to evaluate expressions; variables in expressions are evaluated just once. This policy makes it easier to predict results, at the cost of some surprise. makelist evaluates its first argument, expr, for each value of n between n1 and n2. What is the value of expr? It is n^2 in each case. That is not evaluated further, so the result is [n^2, n^2, n^2]. There are various ways to cause expr to be evaluated more. Here is one. my_table (expr, n, n1, n2) := makelist (ev (expr), n, n1, n2); my_table (n^2, n, 1, 3); => [1, 4, 9] Although Maxima's evaluation rules are complex and often confusing, I'm closing this report as "won't fix". Hope this helps. Robert Dodier  Comment By: Ted Woollett (woollett) Date: 20070611 16:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1806103 Originator: YES my computer system: Maxima version: 5.12.0 Maxima build date: 19:33 5/3/2007 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1735401&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070615 01:24:40

Bugs item #1735401, was opened at 20070611 17:27 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1735401&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 Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Ted Woollett (woollett) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: makelist( ) inside function definition Initial Comment: Attempts to use makelist function inside a user defined function: Maxima 5.12.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net Using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.8 (aka GCL) /* 1 */ (%i1) table1(expr, n, n1, n2) := ( z : makelist(expr, n, n1,n2 ), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i2) table1(n^2, n, 1, 3)$ 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 2 */ (%i3) table2(expr,n,n1,n2) := ( print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," n1 = ",n1," n2 = ",n2), z : makelist(expr,n,n1,n2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i4) table2(n^2,n,1,3)$ 2 expr = n n = n n1 = 1 n2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 3 */ (%i5) table3(expr,n,n1,n2) := block([z], print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," n1 = ",n1," n2 = ",n2), z : makelist(expr,n,n1,n2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i6) table3(n^2,n,1,3)$ 2 expr = n n = n n1 = 1 n2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 4 */ (%i7) table4(expr,n,n1,n2) := block([z,m1:n1, m2:n2], print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," m1 = ",m1," m2 = ",m2 ), z : makelist(expr, n, m1, m2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i8) table4(n^2, n, 1, 3)$ 2 expr = n n = n m1 = 1 m2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] I am assuming "expr" is not a reserved word in Maxima. Perhaps I am not using corrent passage of arguments??  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070614 19:24 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO It turns out that the observed behavior is to be expected. Maxima does not try as much as it can to evaluate expressions; variables in expressions are evaluated just once. This policy makes it easier to predict results, at the cost of some surprise. makelist evaluates its first argument, expr, for each value of n between n1 and n2. What is the value of expr? It is n^2 in each case. That is not evaluated further, so the result is [n^2, n^2, n^2]. There are various ways to cause expr to be evaluated more. Here is one. my_table (expr, n, n1, n2) := makelist (ev (expr), n, n1, n2); my_table (n^2, n, 1, 3); => [1, 4, 9] Although Maxima's evaluation rules are complex and often confusing, I'm closing this report as "won't fix". Hope this helps. Robert Dodier  Comment By: Ted Woollett (woollett) Date: 20070611 17:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1806103 Originator: YES my computer system: Maxima version: 5.12.0 Maxima build date: 19:33 5/3/2007 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1735401&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070615 01:06:57

Bugs item #1737272, was opened at 20070614 09:23 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1737272&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: SELinux blocking maxima startup Initial Comment: (Fedora 7 on a Dell Latitude D510, SELinux running with default policies, maxima 5.12) Starting maxima at the command line or with xmaxima gives: SELinux is preventing /usr/lib/maxima/5.12.0/binarygcl/maxima from changing a writable memory segment executable. SELinux is preventing /usr/lib/maxima/5.12.0/binarygcl/maxima from changing the access protection of memory on the heap. SELinux is preventing /usr/lib/maxima/5.12.0/binarygcl/maxima from loading /usr/lib/maxima/5.12.0/binarygcl/maxima which requires text relocation. I can fix this by turning off the appropriate SELinux Booleans for memory protection, but this isn't that great for system security.  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070614 19:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO I believe this problem is essentially unfixable, given that various Lisp implementations (apparently GCL is among them to judge by the complaints made by SELinux) do things like executing instructions in data areas and other stuff which used to be no big deal, but which are now flagged as dodgy by securityaware systems such as SELinux and WEP (Windows Execution Prevention). So making this problem go away means either (1) telling SELinux to ignore it (maybe you can get SELinux to ignore the problem just for Maxima), or (2) modifying the Lisp implementation (i.e. invest a year or two resolving the problem) or (3) using a different Lisp implementation (unfortunately I do not know which ones avoid the techniques which SELinux complains about; maybe you can ask on comp.lang.lisp or something like that). Sorry I can't be more helpful!  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1737272&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070614 15:23:30

Bugs item #1737272, was opened at 20070614 08:23 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=1737272&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 Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: SELinux blocking maxima startup Initial Comment: (Fedora 7 on a Dell Latitude D510, SELinux running with default policies, maxima 5.12) Starting maxima at the command line or with xmaxima gives: SELinux is preventing /usr/lib/maxima/5.12.0/binarygcl/maxima from changing a writable memory segment executable. SELinux is preventing /usr/lib/maxima/5.12.0/binarygcl/maxima from changing the access protection of memory on the heap. SELinux is preventing /usr/lib/maxima/5.12.0/binarygcl/maxima from loading /usr/lib/maxima/5.12.0/binarygcl/maxima which requires text relocation. I can fix this by turning off the appropriate SELinux Booleans for memory protection, but this isn't that great for system security.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1737272&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 21:41:20

Bugs item #1635372, was opened at 20070114 16:10 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1635372&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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: specint returns expression containing internal Lisp variable Initial Comment: assume(p > 0, a > 0, b > 0); sin(a*t)*cosh(b*t^2)*%e^(p*t); radcan(specint(%,t)); => long expression containing failonf24p146test Not sure what's going on here, haven't looked into it.  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 17:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO The special variable is *hypreturnnounformp*, defaulting to T. The expression no longer returns failonf24p146test. Closing bug report.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070118 10:48 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Oh, it would be a Lisp special, internal to maxima, not exposed to Maxima and not intended for the general user. The default would be to return the noun form. For debugging, I would be to turn it on to enable the old behavior so I can track down the issues more easily.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070118 10:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: YES About the global variable, I guess I'm not opposed to that. Maybe it can be a Lisp special or maybe it can be in a new Lisp package :specint or something (in either case so it doesn't clutter the Maxima namespace).  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070117 20:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Since integrate doesn't call specint, I think it should be specint. The only thing preventing me from actually fixing this is that it makes it easy to figure out why specint failed. Now, it's pretty easy to find the cause. As a compromise, perhaps I'll add a global variable (yuck) to control whether the symbol or noun form is returned.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070116 23:07 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: YES Yes, I think returning a noun form is the right thing to do here. Not sure whether it should be an integrate noun or specint noun; maybe it doesn't matter too much.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070115 19:42 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO This means that maxima thought the integrand looked like t^(v1)*exp(t^2/8/a), but it didn't satisfy the requirements that Re(a) > 0 and Re(v) > 0. At this point it doesn't know how to proceed. I have not convinced myself that this Laplace transform exists. Perhaps we could just return the noun form. If we do that, the answer contains specint(%i/4*exp(b*t^2(p+%i)*t),t) + specint(%i/4*exp(b*t^2(p%i*a)*t)) which is equivalent to specint(exp(b*t^2p*t)*sin(a*t),t)/2.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1635372&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 21:26:32

Bugs item #1714044, was opened at 20070507 01:21 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1714044&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: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Maxima asks unnecessary questions in integration Initial Comment: Following example shows Maxima asking a lot of questions, although the result doesn't depend on the answers; I consider that a bug. This is from the mailing list 20070413, "integration asks to many questions". (%i1) p:(1+a*cos(kp*x1)+a*cos(kp*x2)+a*a*cos(kp*x1)*cos(kp*x2))*sin(kp*(x1x2)/4); (%i2) p2:p*(1+c*cos(kp*(x1+x2)/2)); (%i3) integrate(integrate(p2^2,x1,4*%pi/kp,4*%pi/kp),x2,5*%pi/kp/2,7*% pi/kp/2); Is kp positive or negative? p; Is a zero or nonzero? n; Is a c positive, negative, or zero? n; Is c zero or nonzero? n; Is a positive or negative? n; Is c positive or negative? p; Is cos(kp x2) positive, negative, or zero? p; Is kp positive or negative? p; <result here>  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 17:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Oops. There is one difference. Problem 209 in rtest15 returns 2/3/sqrt(2) instead of sqrt(2)/3. But these are equivalent.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 17:11 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Here is a replacement for easysubs. If the antiderivative doesn't involve the inverse of a trig function, or hyperbolic function or isn't a log, we can substitute in the limits directly (if they're finite). If the limit succeeds, we are done. This change gets rid of all the questions and doesn't introduce any additional issues in the testsuite. The change is the new line containing involve. (defun easysubs (e ll ul) (cond ((or (infinityp ll) (infinityp ul)) ()) (t (cond ((or (polyinx e var ()) (not (involve e '(%log %asin %acos %atan %asinh %acosh %atanh)))) (let ((llval (noerrsub ll e)) (ulval (noerrsub ul e))) (cond ((and llval ulval) (m ulval llval)) (t ())))) (t ())))))  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 15:01 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO FWIW, the maxima is computing this integral via methodradicalpoly. It can find the antiderivative and is now carefully substituting the limits in via intsubs. Since the antiderivative only involves trig functions (no inverses), there shouldn't be a problem just substituting in the limits. Perhaps easysubs needs to be extended to handle this case?  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20070612 23:18 Message: Logged In: NO I had the same silly question when integrating exp(ïky)*hermite(n,x)*x^j  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1714044&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 21:11:53

Bugs item #1714044, was opened at 20070507 01:21 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1714044&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: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Maxima asks unnecessary questions in integration Initial Comment: Following example shows Maxima asking a lot of questions, although the result doesn't depend on the answers; I consider that a bug. This is from the mailing list 20070413, "integration asks to many questions". (%i1) p:(1+a*cos(kp*x1)+a*cos(kp*x2)+a*a*cos(kp*x1)*cos(kp*x2))*sin(kp*(x1x2)/4); (%i2) p2:p*(1+c*cos(kp*(x1+x2)/2)); (%i3) integrate(integrate(p2^2,x1,4*%pi/kp,4*%pi/kp),x2,5*%pi/kp/2,7*% pi/kp/2); Is kp positive or negative? p; Is a zero or nonzero? n; Is a c positive, negative, or zero? n; Is c zero or nonzero? n; Is a positive or negative? n; Is c positive or negative? p; Is cos(kp x2) positive, negative, or zero? p; Is kp positive or negative? p; <result here>  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 17:11 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Here is a replacement for easysubs. If the antiderivative doesn't involve the inverse of a trig function, or hyperbolic function or isn't a log, we can substitute in the limits directly (if they're finite). If the limit succeeds, we are done. This change gets rid of all the questions and doesn't introduce any additional issues in the testsuite. The change is the new line containing involve. (defun easysubs (e ll ul) (cond ((or (infinityp ll) (infinityp ul)) ()) (t (cond ((or (polyinx e var ()) (not (involve e '(%log %asin %acos %atan %asinh %acosh %atanh)))) (let ((llval (noerrsub ll e)) (ulval (noerrsub ul e))) (cond ((and llval ulval) (m ulval llval)) (t ())))) (t ())))))  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 15:01 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO FWIW, the maxima is computing this integral via methodradicalpoly. It can find the antiderivative and is now carefully substituting the limits in via intsubs. Since the antiderivative only involves trig functions (no inverses), there shouldn't be a problem just substituting in the limits. Perhaps easysubs needs to be extended to handle this case?  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20070612 23:18 Message: Logged In: NO I had the same silly question when integrating exp(ïky)*hermite(n,x)*x^j  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1714044&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 19:50:35

Bugs item #1736719, was opened at 20070613 19:50 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=1736719&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  Taylor Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Sanjoy Mahajan (sm324) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: taylor() segfaults when given wrong argument order Initial Comment: I called taylor() with the wrong argument order (putting the R third instead of second), and that causes a segfault if done twice: (%i1) taylor(exp(R), 0, R, 10); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Error in PROGN [or a callee]: Caught fatal error [memory may be damaged] Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. (%i2) taylor(exp(R), 0, R, 10); Segmentation fault (core dumped) This is with Maxima version: 5.12.0 Maxima build date: 3:18 5/23/2007 host type: i686pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.7 (it's the Ubuntu 5.12.01ubuntu1 package for Ubuntu 7.10 recompiled for Ubuntu 7.04.) Sanjoy  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1736719&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 19:01:05

Bugs item #1714044, was opened at 20070507 01:21 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1714044&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: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Maxima asks unnecessary questions in integration Initial Comment: Following example shows Maxima asking a lot of questions, although the result doesn't depend on the answers; I consider that a bug. This is from the mailing list 20070413, "integration asks to many questions". (%i1) p:(1+a*cos(kp*x1)+a*cos(kp*x2)+a*a*cos(kp*x1)*cos(kp*x2))*sin(kp*(x1x2)/4); (%i2) p2:p*(1+c*cos(kp*(x1+x2)/2)); (%i3) integrate(integrate(p2^2,x1,4*%pi/kp,4*%pi/kp),x2,5*%pi/kp/2,7*% pi/kp/2); Is kp positive or negative? p; Is a zero or nonzero? n; Is a c positive, negative, or zero? n; Is c zero or nonzero? n; Is a positive or negative? n; Is c positive or negative? p; Is cos(kp x2) positive, negative, or zero? p; Is kp positive or negative? p; <result here>  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 15:01 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO FWIW, the maxima is computing this integral via methodradicalpoly. It can find the antiderivative and is now carefully substituting the limits in via intsubs. Since the antiderivative only involves trig functions (no inverses), there shouldn't be a problem just substituting in the limits. Perhaps easysubs needs to be extended to handle this case?  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20070612 23:18 Message: Logged In: NO I had the same silly question when integrating exp(ïky)*hermite(n,x)*x^j  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1714044&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 18:31:02

Bugs item #657382, was opened at 20021221 20:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=657382&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: 4 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: defint/limit infinite loop Initial Comment: integrate(1/(x^51),x,1,inf) appears to get into an infinite loop inside $limit (over 4 hours CPU).  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 14:31 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO FWIW, this still happens in 5.12 cvs. What's happening is that maxima has computed the antiderivative correctly and is now trying to carefully substitute in the limits of integration to make sure everything is on the right sheet. This is basically done in takeprincipal and intsubs. I don't understand why maxima does the limit essentially twice like limit(anti,x,1+eps,plus)  limit(anti,x,1eps,minus). This seems to be where maxima is getting stuck. If it were to finish, maxima would then go and take the limit as eps goes to zero from above. Perhaps if the pole is at one of the limits of integration as it is here, maxima should do something else? I think the current code assumes the pole is within the integration interval.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20021221 20:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Sorry,. I forgot to mention that this is under 5.5 GCL/Windows 2000.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=657382&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 16:20:01

Bugs item #917505, was opened at 20040316 13:40 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=917505&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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integral: general case handled, not special Initial Comment: assume(b>1)$ integrate(1/(cos(a*x)+b),x); works but integrate(1/(cos(4*x)+3),x); does not, even though it is just the first case with a=b=2. It turns out that 4/(cos(4*x)+3) == 1/(sin(x)^4+cos(x) ^4). The sin(x)^4 form integrates, but the cos(4*x) form doesn't....  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 12:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO I agree. Closing this bug report.  Comment By: Harald Geyer (hgeyer) Date: 20070608 07:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=929336 Originator: NO I have tested this and similiar cases under 5.11.0 und 5.12.0 both Clisp. I can reproduce the problem with 5.11.0 but 5.12.0 seems to work and yield correct results for this and similiar cases. I think this bug report can be closed. Regards, Harald  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=917505&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 15:36:51

Bugs item #1736216, was opened at 20070612 23:16 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1736216&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: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Summary: integration integrate(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1);=0???? Initial Comment: In the Moses tutorial, there is the integration %i1) integrate(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1); (%o1) 0 while the true result is 0.02880...... which was obtained using romberg (%i2) romberg(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1); Is that a bug, or is there a trick. (%o2) 0.028806333924554  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20070613 11:36 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Recent CVS version doesn't return 0. It returns some really long and hairy expression that can't be printed because it's too wide. But radcan(sqrtdenest(integrate(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1))); returns something sensible, which evaluates to 0.028806... What version of maxima? Marking this as pending.  Comment By: Harald Geyer (hgeyer) Date: 20070613 09:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=929336 Originator: NO I don't know, what the submitter (alas he left no contact info) did wrong, but I can't reproduce this bug with 5.11.0 and 5.12.0 (both clisp). Maxima gives a very long expression, which is evaluated by float() to something almost equal to the result of romberg().  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1736216&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 13:22:20

Bugs item #1736216, was opened at 20070613 05:16 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by hgeyer You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1736216&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integration integrate(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1);=0???? Initial Comment: In the Moses tutorial, there is the integration %i1) integrate(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1); (%o1) 0 while the true result is 0.02880...... which was obtained using romberg (%i2) romberg(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1); Is that a bug, or is there a trick. (%o2) 0.028806333924554  Comment By: Harald Geyer (hgeyer) Date: 20070613 15:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=929336 Originator: NO I don't know, what the submitter (alas he left no contact info) did wrong, but I can't reproduce this bug with 5.11.0 and 5.12.0 (both clisp). Maxima gives a very long expression, which is evaluated by float() to something almost equal to the result of romberg().  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1736216&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 03:18:17

Bugs item #1714044, was opened at 20070506 22:21 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1714044&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: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Maxima asks unnecessary questions in integration Initial Comment: Following example shows Maxima asking a lot of questions, although the result doesn't depend on the answers; I consider that a bug. This is from the mailing list 20070413, "integration asks to many questions". (%i1) p:(1+a*cos(kp*x1)+a*cos(kp*x2)+a*a*cos(kp*x1)*cos(kp*x2))*sin(kp*(x1x2)/4); (%i2) p2:p*(1+c*cos(kp*(x1+x2)/2)); (%i3) integrate(integrate(p2^2,x1,4*%pi/kp,4*%pi/kp),x2,5*%pi/kp/2,7*% pi/kp/2); Is kp positive or negative? p; Is a zero or nonzero? n; Is a c positive, negative, or zero? n; Is c zero or nonzero? n; Is a positive or negative? n; Is c positive or negative? p; Is cos(kp x2) positive, negative, or zero? p; Is kp positive or negative? p; <result here>  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20070612 20:18 Message: Logged In: NO I had the same silly question when integrating exp(ïky)*hermite(n,x)*x^j  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1714044&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070613 03:16:03

Bugs item #1736216, was opened at 20070612 20:16 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=1736216&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integration integrate(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1);=0???? Initial Comment: In the Moses tutorial, there is the integration %i1) integrate(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1); (%o1) 0 while the true result is 0.02880...... which was obtained using romberg (%i2) romberg(1/((x3)^4+1/2),x,0,1); Is that a bug, or is there a trick. (%o2) 0.028806333924554  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1736216&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070611 23:37:23

Bugs item #1735401, was opened at 20070611 16:27 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by woollett You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1735401&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: makelist( ) inside function definition Initial Comment: Attempts to use makelist function inside a user defined function: Maxima 5.12.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net Using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.8 (aka GCL) /* 1 */ (%i1) table1(expr, n, n1, n2) := ( z : makelist(expr, n, n1,n2 ), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i2) table1(n^2, n, 1, 3)$ 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 2 */ (%i3) table2(expr,n,n1,n2) := ( print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," n1 = ",n1," n2 = ",n2), z : makelist(expr,n,n1,n2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i4) table2(n^2,n,1,3)$ 2 expr = n n = n n1 = 1 n2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 3 */ (%i5) table3(expr,n,n1,n2) := block([z], print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," n1 = ",n1," n2 = ",n2), z : makelist(expr,n,n1,n2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i6) table3(n^2,n,1,3)$ 2 expr = n n = n n1 = 1 n2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 4 */ (%i7) table4(expr,n,n1,n2) := block([z,m1:n1, m2:n2], print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," m1 = ",m1," m2 = ",m2 ), z : makelist(expr, n, m1, m2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i8) table4(n^2, n, 1, 3)$ 2 expr = n n = n m1 = 1 m2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] I am assuming "expr" is not a reserved word in Maxima. Perhaps I am not using corrent passage of arguments??  >Comment By: Ted Woollett (woollett) Date: 20070611 16:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1806103 Originator: YES my computer system: Maxima version: 5.12.0 Maxima build date: 19:33 5/3/2007 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1735401&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070611 23:27:29

Bugs item #1735401, was opened at 20070611 16:27 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=1735401&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: makelist( ) inside function definition Initial Comment: Attempts to use makelist function inside a user defined function: Maxima 5.12.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net Using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.8 (aka GCL) /* 1 */ (%i1) table1(expr, n, n1, n2) := ( z : makelist(expr, n, n1,n2 ), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i2) table1(n^2, n, 1, 3)$ 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 2 */ (%i3) table2(expr,n,n1,n2) := ( print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," n1 = ",n1," n2 = ",n2), z : makelist(expr,n,n1,n2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i4) table2(n^2,n,1,3)$ 2 expr = n n = n n1 = 1 n2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 3 */ (%i5) table3(expr,n,n1,n2) := block([z], print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," n1 = ",n1," n2 = ",n2), z : makelist(expr,n,n1,n2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i6) table3(n^2,n,1,3)$ 2 expr = n n = n n1 = 1 n2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] /* 4 */ (%i7) table4(expr,n,n1,n2) := block([z,m1:n1, m2:n2], print(" expr = ",expr," n = ",n," m1 = ",m1," m2 = ",m2 ), z : makelist(expr, n, m1, m2), print(" z = ", z) )$ (%i8) table4(n^2, n, 1, 3)$ 2 expr = n n = n m1 = 1 m2 = 3 2 2 2 z = [n , n , n ] I am assuming "expr" is not a reserved word in Maxima. Perhaps I am not using corrent passage of arguments??  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1735401&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070611 17:26:52

Bugs item #1734271, was opened at 20070609 21:10 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1734271&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: Problem not in Maxima >Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dick Silbar (silbar) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: interactive never pauses for answer Initial Comment: Maxima version: 5.9.2Maxima build date: 11:53 12/12/2006host type: i686pclinuxgnulispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL)lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.7 When trying out the "Use of 'assume'and interactive query" in the /usr/shar/info/maxima.info (which I think I got to through help:integration), the question comes up and never pauses for my answer, then repeats itself ad nauseum. This is in wxMaxima, in Ubuntu DapperDrake (as updated to be able to run wxMaxima). I should point out that I am a new user of wxMaxima and maxima, although I am well experienced in using Mathematica on computers at work.  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20070611 11:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Closing this report as "problem not in Maxima" and "won't fix" per comments of Harald Geyer. I second Harald's recommendation to try a newer version.  Comment By: Harald Geyer (hgeyer) Date: 20070610 03:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=929336 Originator: NO Hi Dick! I had the same problem almost a year ago. The problem is not in maxima but in a specific version of gcl 2.6.7. See http://bugs.debian.org/363909 I think you have the following options to fix your problem: 1) Install updated gcl and compile maxima yourself 2) Install a different lisp and compile maxima yourself 3) Upgrade to a newer ubuntu maxima package which was compiled with a sufficiently new version of gcl 4) Upgrade to a newer ubuntu version BTW 5.9.2 is really old. The current version of maxima is 5.12.0, which contains lots of new features and bug fixes. I recommend you to get the sources of this version and compile it yourself. Compiling maxima on linux is quite easy. I think this bug report should be closed, because the maxima developers can't do anything about this problem. HTH, Harald  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1734271&group_id=4933 