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}
(23) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 







1

2
(2) 
3
(1) 
4

5

6
(4) 
7

8

9
(3) 
10
(1) 
11
(4) 
12
(3) 
13

14
(4) 
15
(6) 
16

17
(6) 
18
(6) 
19
(4) 
20
(10) 
21
(6) 
22
(3) 
23
(2) 
24
(1) 
25
(1) 
26
(11) 
27
(6) 
28
(4) 
29
(11) 
30
(2) 
31






From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20071219 20:24:38

Bugs item #1854391, was opened at 20071219 15:24 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=1854391&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: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: "if" doesn't give errors for nonbooleans Initial Comment: The following cases should give errors: if 3 then x$ if %pi then x$ if "hello" then x$ if [1] then x$ if matrix(...) then x$ if {1,2,3} then x$ (other cases?) because the constants or containers cannot evaluate to booleans regardless of the lexical environment. Perhaps the same should be true of expressions whose top level is an arithmetic operator, e.g. if x+1 then ... if 1/x then ... but I suppose the arithmetic operators could be overloaded (using pattern matching) to return boolean results in some cases. I ran into this problem when I mistakenly assumed that Maxima followed the Lisp convention that nonfalse was true: if assoc(x,'[["+",""],["*","//"]]) then ... when x was "+". Instead of getting an error message, I got an unevaluated conditional if "" then ... which made no sense at all. Maxima 5.12.0 GCL Windows  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1854391&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20071219 14:59:44

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 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: 8 Private: No 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: 20071219 09:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Originator: YES I have raised the priority of this bug, because it is very close to the surface (i.e. easy for just about any user to run into). See also 1853191, where algebraic gives strange results...  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20031008 23:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 More examples. Righthand side is after ratsimp/algebraic. I believe the general simplifier should be giving those forms. 1/(2*2^(2/3)) 2^(1/3)/4 1/2^(2/3) 2^(1/3)/2 1/(2*SQRT(2)) SQRT(2)/4 1/SQRT(2) SQRT(2)/2 1/(2*2^(1/3)) 2^(2/3)/4 1/2^(1/3) 2^(2/3)/2 Things get worse with nonnumeric contents. In the following, each group of expressions denotes the same thing, but none simplifies to the others. I have put *** next to those forms which are the results of ratsimp/algebraic. Note that in several cases, there is more than one equivalent ratsimp'ed form.... 1/(a*b)^(5/2) 1/(a^2*b^2*SQRT(a*b)) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^3*b^3) *** 1/(a*b)^(3/2) 1/(a*b*SQRT(a*b)) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^2*b^2) *** 1/(a*b)^(7/6) 1/(a^(2/3)*b^(2/3)*SQRT(a*b)) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^(5/3)*b^(5/3)) *** (a*b)^(5/6)/(a^2*b^2) *** 1/(a*b)^(5/6) *** 1/(a^(1/3)*b^(1/3)*SQRT(a*b)) *** (a*b)^(1/6)/(a*b) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^(4/3)*b^(4/3)) *** 1/SQRT(a*b) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a*b) *** a^(1/3)*b^(1/3)/SQRT(a*b) *** 1/(a*b)^(1/6) *** SQRT(a*b)/(a^(2/3)*b^(2/3)) *** (a*b)^(5/6)/(a*b) *** Now it is true that these expressions are in fact not all equivalent as to principal value, but I will leave that exercise for later. Many of them are, and they are not being canonicalized.  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...>  20071219 11:38:40

Bugs item #1853121, was opened at 20071218 10:41 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1853121&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core  Simplification Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Duplicate Priority: 8 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 2/sqrt(2) doesn't simplify! Initial Comment: 2/sqrt(2) remains unsimplified; it should be sqrt(2). Similarly for other numbers: 5/sqrt(5) etc. There does not seem to be any straightforward way to simplify this: rat(2/sqrt(2)) = radcan(2/sqrt(2))  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20071219 06:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1797506 Originator: NO duplicate of bug 721575.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20071218 10:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Originator: YES Tested in 5.13.0 GCL 2.6.8 Windows  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1853121&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20071219 11:26:07

Bugs item #1828956, was opened at 20071109 08:14 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1828956&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: Jan Fricke (matheschlumpf) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Integration yields wrong results Initial Comment: I want to integrate the function arccos(x/l) + arccos(y/l)  pi/2  2 pi over the quartercircle with radius l>0. The correct result is l^2/(4pi). A direct calculation with Maxima (Ver. 5.10.0, debian lenny) gives l^2/(8pi). If I only integrate the function arccos(x/l), then I should get (pi*l/4)^2 + (l/2)^2, but I get 2 2 l false 4 l false  %pi l    4 16 Best wishes Jan  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20071219 06:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1797506 Originator: NO Fixed in irint.lisp rev 1.21  check return value to avoid "false" left in result. (%i14) assume(x>0,l>x); (%o14) [x > 0,l > x] (%i15) integrate(integrate((acos(x/l)+acos(y/l)%pi/2)/(2*%pi),y,0,sqrt(l^2x^2)),x,0,l); (%o15) l^2/(4*%pi)  Comment By: Viktor Toth (vttoth) Date: 20071109 14:58 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1023504 Originator: NO I think the problem is demonstrated by how Maxima simplifies acos(sqrt(l^2x^2)/l)asin(x/l), as in the following example: assume(l>0); acos(sqrt(l^2x^2)/l)asin(x/l); integrate(%,x,0,l); sqrt(l^2x^2)*acos(sqrt(l^2x^2)/l)sqrt(l^2x^2)*asin(x/l); integrate(%,x,0,l); Viktor  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20071109 12:49 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Thank you very much for the session logs. I now see what you're doing and maxima is definitely wrong.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20071109 12:17 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Several issues here. First, you probably wanted acos, not arccos. Second pi is written %pi in maxima. You didn't mention what integrate command was used. Please be more explicit. Also, 5.10.0 is quite old. If possible, try the 5.13.0 release. Marking this as pending and invalid.  Comment By: Jan Fricke (matheschlumpf) Date: 20071109 12:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=810809 Originator: YES I typed all things correctly and attached a session log as file. For the clearness of the (mathematical) problem I described it firstly in "standard notation". I also tried the 5.13.0 result with the same (wrong) result and append now again a session log. Best wishes, Jan File Added: maxima5.13.0.log  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20071109 11:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Several issues here. First, you probably wanted acos, not arccos. Second pi is written %pi in maxima. You didn't mention what integrate command was used. Please be more explicit. Also, 5.10.0 is quite old. If possible, try the 5.13.0 release. Marking this as pending and invalid.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1828956&group_id=4933 