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}
(22) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 





1
(6) 
2
(10) 
3

4
(3) 
5
(5) 
6

7
(5) 
8
(3) 
9
(3) 
10
(3) 
11

12
(1) 
13
(1) 
14
(8) 
15
(8) 
16
(3) 
17
(5) 
18

19

20

21

22
(1) 
23

24
(2) 
25
(2) 
26
(2) 
27

28
(1) 
29
(2) 
30

31
(3) 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080514 21:57:15

Bugs item #1612489, was opened at 20061209 23:50 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1612489&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: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: quoted nested nary expressions flattened incompletely Initial Comment: Quoted (unevaluated) nested nary expressions are flattened incompletely. Evaluated nested nary expressions appear to be flattened completely. Completely flattened: nary ("aa"); declare ("aa", nary); a aa (b aa (c aa (d aa (e aa (f aa g))))); => a aa b aa c aa d aa e aa f aa g Incompletely flattened: '(a aa (b aa (c aa (d aa (e aa (f aa g)))))); => a aa b aa (c aa d aa (e aa f aa g)) When the operator has the properties OPERS and $NARY, then NARY1 is called to flatten. Plus, times, and nctimes (maybe others) aren't affected by this because flattening for those operators is handled by their simplification functions, not NARY1. It would be nice to use this mechanism (OPERS + $NARY + NARY1) to flatten MAND and MOR. (This will become more of an issue when unevaluated boolean expressions are in use.)  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080514 15:57 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: YES Appears to have been fixed between 5.11.0 and 5.12.0. Closing this report as fixed.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1612489&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080514 09:51:17

Bugs item #1401409, was opened at 20060110 04:57 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1401409&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: Fix for 5.9.2 >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Kubula (kubula) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: wrong function acot Initial Comment: I have maxima for windows (5.9.2) and maxima on my debian Sarge(5.9.19). When I plot graph of function acot (arc cotangent) I see, that this graph is wrong. (%i1) plot2d(acot(x),[x,10,10]) ; This is graph of function atan(1/x), but acot is defined by formula acot(x) = Pi/2  atan(x)  Comment By: Kubula (kubula) Date: 20060206 08:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1020884 My formula is correct. Formula pi/2  atan(x) is inverse function for function cotangent on interval (0;pi). Formula atan(1/x) is inverse funciton for function cotangent on interval (pi/2;pi/2). So bug is in help, because there isn't interval defined.  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20060110 16:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=895922 >From Abramowitz and Stegun (A&S): acot(x) = atan(1/x) (4.4.8) atan(x) + acot(x) = pi/2 if real part(x) <= 0 (4.4.4) atan(x) + acot(x) = pi/2 if real part(x) > 0 (4.4.4) According to Abramowitz and Stegun (the unoffical offical reference for Maxima), your formula isn't correct in the left half plane. Nevertheless, such things are easy to mess up, so I'll carefully check A&S identities 4.4.4  4.4.9 using cvs Maxima. Barton  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1401409&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080514 09:37:13

Bugs item #801231, was opened at 20030905 11:59 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=801231&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  Assume Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: MAX(a+b,c) is NOT equal to MAX(c,a+b) Initial Comment: (C1) assume(a+b>c)$ (C2) MAX(a+b,c); MAX(c,a+b); (D2) b + a (C3) (D3) MAX(c, b + a) #why it is not simplified ? (C4) is(MAX(a+b,c)=MAX(c,a+b)); (D4) FALSE #why FALSE if must be TRUE ? P.S. Appreciate if you exclude javascripts from the site. Alexander VIDYBIDA vidybida@...  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20080514 04:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=895922 Originator: NO In 5.15.0: (%i34) assume(a+b > c)$ (%i35) max(a+b,c); (%o35) b+a (%i36) max(c,a+b); (%o36) b+a  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060709 22:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Still present in 5.9.3cvs.  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisb) Date: 20030905 12:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=570592 Most likely, this bug is related to the bug (C1) assume(a+b > c); (D1) [ C + b + a > 0] (C2) sign(a+bc); (D2) POS (C3) sign(c(a+b)); (D3) PNZ The result of PNZ (positive, negative, or zero) isn't wrong; however, Maxima should be able to determine that c  (a + b) < 0. That is (d3) should be NEG instead of PNZ. Barton  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20030905 12:08 Message: Logged In: NO Comment by A lexander VIDYBIDA vidybida@... Maxima version: 5.9.0 Maxima build date: 19:1 8/5/2003 host type: i586pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: CLISP lispimplementationversion: 2.27 (released 20010717) (built 3223390905) (memory 3269088151)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=801231&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080514 09:22:28

Bugs item #1663537, was opened at 20070219 08:52 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1663537&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: Share Libraries Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 3 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: newton & listconstvars Initial Comment: I think newton should set listconstvars to false: (%i22) newton(x^2  %i, 1  %i/2), listconstvars : true; (%o22) x^2 (%i23) newton(x^2  %i, 1  %i/2), listconstvars : false; (%o23) 7.071067828336269b1*%i+7.071067804126268b1 Or maybe newton should require a var argument.  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20080514 04:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=895922 Originator: YES Fixed by CVS version 1.3  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1663537&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080514 00:32:49

Bugs item #1963314, was opened at 20080513 13:35 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1963314&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: Share Libraries Group: None >Status: Open Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Fresnel integral  function romberg error. Initial Comment: Maxima 5.14.0 Linux and 5.15.0 Windows. Fresnel integral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_integral http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Fresnel_Integrals_%28Normalised%29.svg/250pxFresnel_Integrals_%28Normalised%29.svg.png Maxima command: for i:1 thru 10 do display(romberg(sin(%pi/2*(x^2)),x,0,i)); .... romberg(sin((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,7)=0.49970480390049 romberg(sin((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,8)=1.0449974219284286*10^14 romberg(sin((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,9)=0.49986104588168 also romberg(cos((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,7)=0.54546705790348 romberg(cos((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,8)=8.0 romberg(cos((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,9)=0.53536612585252 in point x=8 is error. Thx  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080513 18:32 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Changing status back to open so it appears in the default browsing mode.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080513 18:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO romberg is easily fooled by oscillatory integrands: it evaluates the integrand at a few points and sees that they are the same, so it thinks the integrand is constant. Much better to use the Quadpack functions, namely quad_qags, etc. ?? quad at the input prompt should find them. You can fiddle with some parameters to make romberg succeed on this problem (?? romberg finds them), but romberg is just not a very strong algorithm; use quad_qags or some other Quadpack function instead. Marking this report as "won't fix"; the romberg function is a correct implementation of Romberg's method. Instead of closing it, I'll leave it pending, so it stays open for a while in case the original poster comes back. Note: please log in so that annotations on bug reports are automatically sent to you.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1963314&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080514 00:31:39

Bugs item #1963314, was opened at 20080513 13:35 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1963314&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: Share Libraries Group: None Status: Pending Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 >Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Fresnel integral  function romberg error. Initial Comment: Maxima 5.14.0 Linux and 5.15.0 Windows. Fresnel integral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_integral http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Fresnel_Integrals_%28Normalised%29.svg/250pxFresnel_Integrals_%28Normalised%29.svg.png Maxima command: for i:1 thru 10 do display(romberg(sin(%pi/2*(x^2)),x,0,i)); .... romberg(sin((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,7)=0.49970480390049 romberg(sin((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,8)=1.0449974219284286*10^14 romberg(sin((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,9)=0.49986104588168 also romberg(cos((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,7)=0.54546705790348 romberg(cos((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,8)=8.0 romberg(cos((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,9)=0.53536612585252 in point x=8 is error. Thx  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080513 18:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO romberg is easily fooled by oscillatory integrands: it evaluates the integrand at a few points and sees that they are the same, so it thinks the integrand is constant. Much better to use the Quadpack functions, namely quad_qags, etc. ?? quad at the input prompt should find them. You can fiddle with some parameters to make romberg succeed on this problem (?? romberg finds them), but romberg is just not a very strong algorithm; use quad_qags or some other Quadpack function instead. Marking this report as "won't fix"; the romberg function is a correct implementation of Romberg's method. Instead of closing it, I'll leave it pending, so it stays open for a while in case the original poster comes back. Note: please log in so that annotations on bug reports are automatically sent to you.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1963314&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080514 00:30:39

Bugs item #1963314, was opened at 20080513 13:35 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1963314&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: Share Libraries Group: None >Status: Pending >Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 5 Private: Yes Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Fresnel integral  function romberg error. Initial Comment: Maxima 5.14.0 Linux and 5.15.0 Windows. Fresnel integral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_integral http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Fresnel_Integrals_%28Normalised%29.svg/250pxFresnel_Integrals_%28Normalised%29.svg.png Maxima command: for i:1 thru 10 do display(romberg(sin(%pi/2*(x^2)),x,0,i)); .... romberg(sin((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,7)=0.49970480390049 romberg(sin((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,8)=1.0449974219284286*10^14 romberg(sin((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,9)=0.49986104588168 also romberg(cos((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,7)=0.54546705790348 romberg(cos((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,8)=8.0 romberg(cos((%pi*x^2)/2),x,0,9)=0.53536612585252 in point x=8 is error. Thx  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080513 18:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO romberg is easily fooled by oscillatory integrands: it evaluates the integrand at a few points and sees that they are the same, so it thinks the integrand is constant. Much better to use the Quadpack functions, namely quad_qags, etc. ?? quad at the input prompt should find them. You can fiddle with some parameters to make romberg succeed on this problem (?? romberg finds them), but romberg is just not a very strong algorithm; use quad_qags or some other Quadpack function instead. Marking this report as "won't fix"; the romberg function is a correct implementation of Romberg's method. Instead of closing it, I'll leave it pending, so it stays open for a while in case the original poster comes back. Note: please log in so that annotations on bug reports are automatically sent to you.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1963314&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080514 00:15:50

Bugs item #1955976, was opened at 20080502 02:33 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1955976&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: Share Libraries Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Andrej Vodopivec (andrejv) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: opproperties Initial Comment: This is a bug from share_testsuite: (%i1) load(multiadditive)$ (%i2) declare(myabs, idempotent, myabs, multiplicative)$ (%i3) myabs(xp * myabs(z)); (%o3) myabs(xp)*myabs(myabs(z)) (%o3) should be myabs(xp)*myabs(z) Andrej  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080513 18:15 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Barton, I think you have tried the wrong example. You have myabs(xp)*myabs(myabs(z)) as the test case, but the original report has myabs(xp * myabs(z)). I see the bug when I try the original test case with GCL (on Windows). How about you?  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20080507 04:12 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=895922 Originator: NO Try this experiment with nonGCL Maxima (%i7) :lisp(trace eq idempotent); Warning: EQ is being redefined. Warning: EQ is being redefined. (EQ IDEMPOTENT) myabs(xp)*myabs(myabs(z)); <junk> 1> (IDEMPOTENT (($MYABS) $XP) NIL) <1 (IDEMPOTENT (($MYABS SIMP) $XP)) 1> (IDEMPOTENT (($MYABS) $Z) NIL) <1 (IDEMPOTENT (($MYABS SIMP) $Z)) 1> (IDEMPOTENT (($MYABS) (($MYABS SIMP) $Z)) NIL) 2> (EQ $MYABS $MYABS) <2 (EQ T) <1 (IDEMPOTENT (($MYABS SIMP) $Z))  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20080507 04:03 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=895922 Originator: NO ...with GCL it's OK: (%i1) load(multiadditive); (%o1) C:/PROGRA~1/MAXIMA~2.0/share/maxima/5.15.0/share/contrib/multiadditive.lisp (%i2) declare(myabs, idempotent, myabs, multiplicative); (%o2) done (%i3) myabs(xp)*myabs(myabs(z)); (%o3) myabs(xp)*myabs(z) (%i4) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.15.0 Maxima build date: 17:36 4/20/2008 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 Is this a noun / verb problem?  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080503 23:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Looks like the result is not maximally simplified  reevaluating %o3 => myabs(xp)*myabs(z) as expected.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1955976&group_id=4933 