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}
(105) 
_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 


1
(4) 
2
(3) 
3
(4) 
4
(2) 
5

6
(2) 
7
(2) 
8
(5) 
9
(2) 
10

11

12
(1) 
13
(1) 
14
(2) 
15

16
(1) 
17

18

19

20

21
(3) 
22
(1) 
23
(2) 
24
(1) 
25

26

27
(3) 
28
(1) 
29
(2) 
30





From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080908 14:08:23

Bugs item #635606, was opened at 20021108 12:47 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=635606&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  Limit Group: None >Status: Pending >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(abs(log(x))) internal error, UND Initial Comment: Maxima 5.5/Windows/gcl limit(abs(log(x)),x,0) Error: The tag LIMIT is undefined. Should of course be INF. More controversially, perhaps, limit(log(x),x,0) gives UND  I believe it should give INFINITY; after all, limit(log (x),x,0,minus) gives INFINITY.  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20080908 10:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1797506 Originator: NO As of limit.lisp rev 1.56: (%i6) limit(log(x), x, 0, minus); (%o6) minf+%i*%pi (%i7) limit(log(x), x, 0, plus); (%o7) minf (%i8) limit(abs(log(x)), x, 0, minus); (%o8) inf (%i9) limit(abs(log(x)), x, 0, plus); (%o9) inf (%i10) limit(abs(log(x)), x, 0); (%o10) inf (%i11) limit(1/x, x, 0, minus); (%o11) minf (%i12) limit(1/x, x, 0, plus); (%o12) inf (%i13) limit(1/x, x, 0); (%o13) infinity  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20061109 18:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 re limit(abs(log(x)),x,0) If we're working over real x and the complex log function, then if x>0, it should clearly be inf. If x<0, log(x) is not real, but abs(log(x)) is, and sure enough limit(abs(log(x)),x,0,minus) gives inf. This is I believe correct. And it's all consistent with limit(abs(log(x)),x,0) => inf. If on the other hand you take the position that limit operates on real functions, then negative x are not part of the domain of log(x), so we should look only at the limit for x>0, which also gives us the result inf. But limit is actually happy to return imaginary results, e.g. limit(sqrt(x),x,1) => %i. By the way, currently, limit(log(x),x,0,minus) gives minf+%i*%pi, which makes some sort of intuitive sense, but isn't really a valid expression  it should be infinity.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20061108 21:49 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 The error no longer occurs in current CVS. It returns UND, after asking if x is positive or negative. Why should the answer be INF? log(x) is undefined for negative real x.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=635606&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080908 14:02:35

Bugs item #1374700, was opened at 20051206 13:41 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1374700&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: Rejected Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate((1+tan(x)^2)/tan(x),x); Initial Comment: Nonreal result  Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20080908 10:02 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1797506 Originator: NO The variable b was changed to *b* in sin.lisp rev 1.19.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20080908 09:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Yes, you are right. Still, for real values of x, it is a bit surprising to see maxima give a complex result in log(sin(x)^21)/2, but of course once you substitute actual integral limits, the complex part goes away. But we should fix the b vs bb issue in schatc.lisp in any case. Or at least make sure b is not special in schatc. Or change b to *b* in sin.lisp. Or something.  Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20080903 20:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1797506 Originator: NO Is this really a bug? log(sin(x))  log(sin(x)^21)/2 seems to differ from log(tan(x)) by a constant within each sheet. log(tan(x)) is also complex in general.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20060831 19:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Yes, replacing all occurrences of b in schatc.lisp with bb makes clisp behave like cmucl. But we can see now how to get log(tan(x)) as the answer. We can move case 5 before case 4. Not exactly sure what impact that will have on the algorithm.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20060831 19:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 FWIW, maxima uses trigint to do this integral, and when it gets to case 4, it tries to match the integrand. With cmucl, it matches, but with clisp it doesn't. In rat1, b is NIL in clisp, but is 'cos* in cmucl. b is declared special, and is set to 'cos* in case 4, just before the call to m2, which calls rat1. But note that coeffpt in schatc.lisp also uses the variable b. There is probably some confusion with b here. I am guessing the b in coeffpt is not the global special variablle b in sin.lisp.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20060831 16:40 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Maxima 5.9.3.99rc2 and cmucl 200609 says log(sin(x))  log(sin(x)^21)/2 But the same maxima with clisp 2.35 says log(tan(x)). I don't know why.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060814 22:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Maxima 5.9.3.99rc1 / Clisp 2.38: integrate((1+tan(x)^2)/tan(x),x); => log(tan(x)) which seems right. Maybe if someone else wants to weigh in here. If someone else agrees this result is OK, we can close this report.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20060213 13:07 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This integral is transformed to cos(x)/sin(x)*(sin(x)^2/cos(x)^2+1). Then maxima uses the substitution y=sin(x) to get 1/y*(y^2/(1y^2)+1. However: integrate(1/y*(y^2/(1y^2)+1),y) > log(y)log(y^21)/2. But integrate(expand(1/y*(y^2/(1y^2)+1)),y) > log(y)log(1y^2)/2. The former is wrong for our integration problem; the latter would produce the desired answer.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1374700&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080908 13:30:48

Bugs item #1374700, was opened at 20051206 13:41 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1374700&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: Rejected Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: integrate((1+tan(x)^2)/tan(x),x); Initial Comment: Nonreal result  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20080908 09:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO Yes, you are right. Still, for real values of x, it is a bit surprising to see maxima give a complex result in log(sin(x)^21)/2, but of course once you substitute actual integral limits, the complex part goes away. But we should fix the b vs bb issue in schatc.lisp in any case. Or at least make sure b is not special in schatc. Or change b to *b* in sin.lisp. Or something.  Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20080903 20:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1797506 Originator: NO Is this really a bug? log(sin(x))  log(sin(x)^21)/2 seems to differ from log(tan(x)) by a constant within each sheet. log(tan(x)) is also complex in general.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20060831 19:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Yes, replacing all occurrences of b in schatc.lisp with bb makes clisp behave like cmucl. But we can see now how to get log(tan(x)) as the answer. We can move case 5 before case 4. Not exactly sure what impact that will have on the algorithm.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20060831 19:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 FWIW, maxima uses trigint to do this integral, and when it gets to case 4, it tries to match the integrand. With cmucl, it matches, but with clisp it doesn't. In rat1, b is NIL in clisp, but is 'cos* in cmucl. b is declared special, and is set to 'cos* in case 4, just before the call to m2, which calls rat1. But note that coeffpt in schatc.lisp also uses the variable b. There is probably some confusion with b here. I am guessing the b in coeffpt is not the global special variablle b in sin.lisp.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20060831 16:40 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Maxima 5.9.3.99rc2 and cmucl 200609 says log(sin(x))  log(sin(x)^21)/2 But the same maxima with clisp 2.35 says log(tan(x)). I don't know why.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060814 22:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Maxima 5.9.3.99rc1 / Clisp 2.38: integrate((1+tan(x)^2)/tan(x),x); => log(tan(x)) which seems right. Maybe if someone else wants to weigh in here. If someone else agrees this result is OK, we can close this report.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20060213 13:07 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This integral is transformed to cos(x)/sin(x)*(sin(x)^2/cos(x)^2+1). Then maxima uses the substitution y=sin(x) to get 1/y*(y^2/(1y^2)+1. However: integrate(1/y*(y^2/(1y^2)+1),y) > log(y)log(y^21)/2. But integrate(expand(1/y*(y^2/(1y^2)+1)),y) > log(y)log(1y^2)/2. The former is wrong for our integration problem; the latter would produce the desired answer.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1374700&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080908 11:01:28

Bugs item #2098866, was opened at 20080907 11:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2098866&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: The Henman (rvh2007) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: strings not comparable by lessthan sign Initial Comment: To reproduce this (%i1) is("John">"Barry"); 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) build_info()$ Maxima version: 5.16.3 Maxima build date: 22:48 8/24/2008 host type: i686pcmingw32lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 This is a bug even though it is not the right way to compare strings. Rich  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20080908 06:01 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=895922 Originator: NO Strings can sometimes be used as identifiers: (%i5) "a+b"  (ab); (%o5) ba+a+b (%i6) %"a+b"; (%o6) ba (%i7) cos("a"); (%o7) cos(a) (%i10) "a" : 42; "a" improper value assignment Sometimes they cannot be: assume("a" > 0) > error and floor("a") > error. Before we allow mgrp and mgqp to work on strings, we need a general policy on string identifiers.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080907 17:31 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO Looks like MGRP and MGQP in src/compar.lisp should be equipped with special cases to handle strings.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2098866&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20080908 04:07:40

Bugs item #2099542, was opened at 20080908 00:07 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=2099542&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: Jack O'Connor (oconnor663) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Common sum simplification unsuccessful Initial Comment: The following sum fails to simplify: sum( n / 2^n, n, 1, inf), simpsum; Presumably the answer should be 2, but instead Maxima just returns the sum in sigma notation.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2099542&group_id=4933 