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}
(7) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 


1
(6) 
2
(5) 
3
(3) 
4
(2) 
5
(9) 
6
(3) 
7
(2) 
8
(2) 
9
(2) 
10
(4) 
11
(1) 
12
(12) 
13
(1) 
14
(1) 
15
(1) 
16
(1) 
17

18
(4) 
19
(1) 
20

21
(1) 
22
(1) 
23
(9) 
24
(2) 
25
(3) 
26
(1) 
27
(2) 
28
(1) 
29
(2) 
30





From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090629 17:13:50

Bugs item #2812732, was opened at 20090626 08:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2812732&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: mgma (mgma) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Limit returns a Lisp error Initial Comment: The call limit((sin(W)(a+1)*W*cos(W)+a*W)/W^2, W, 0); returns the message Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Error in $LIMIT [or a callee]: NIL is not of type NUMBER. Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. My installation is the following: Maxima version: 5.18.1 Maxima build date: 20:57 4/19/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 Regards, Miguel  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20090629 13:13 Message: This returns 0 with current CVS. Marking this as pending/fixed.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2812732&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090629 17:10:21

Bugs item #2813116, was opened at 20090626 22:36 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2813116&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: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Lisp error in factor Initial Comment: OK, I need to find a simple case, but for now: (this was an attempt to check a solution from to_poly_solver, by the way.) (%o18) [0,0, %e^(17479/4594)*(%e^(12485/2297)+%e^(9988/2297)+%e^(7491/2297) +(2*%e^(4994/2297)%e^(2497/2297)2) *%e^(12485/4594)+%e^(4994/2297)) /2, %e^(17479/4594)*(%e^(12485/2297)+%e^(9988/2297)+%e^(7491/2297) +(2*%e^(4994/2297)%e^(2497/2297)2) *%e^(12485/4594)+%e^(4994/2297)) /2, %e^(3/1801439850948197)*(%e^(6/1801439850948197) *(%i*sin(2189/320)+cos(2189/320)) %i*sin(2189/320)+cos(2189/320) +%e^(1/1801439850948197) *(2*%i*sin(2189/480)2*cos(2189/480)) +%e^(5/1801439850948197) *(2*%i*sin(2189/480)2*cos(2189/480)) +%e^(4/1801439850948197) *(%i*sin(2189/960)+cos(2189/960)) +%e^(2/1801439850948197) *(cos(2189/960)%i*sin(2189/960)) %e^(3/1801439850948197)) /2, %e^(3/1801439850948197)*(%e^(6/1801439850948197) *(cos(2189/320)%i*sin(2189/320)) +%i*sin(2189/320)+cos(2189/320) +%e^(5/1801439850948197) *(2*%i*sin(2189/480)2*cos(2189/480)) +%e^(1/1801439850948197) *(2*%i*sin(2189/480)2*cos(2189/480)) +%e^(2/1801439850948197) *(%i*sin(2189/960)+cos(2189/960)) +%e^(4/1801439850948197) *(cos(2189/960)%i*sin(2189/960)) %e^(3/1801439850948197)) /2] (%i19) factor(%); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: value 62267881 is not of the expected type (UNSIGNEDBYTE 24). Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. (%i20) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.18post Maxima build date: 0:49 6/25/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: Clozure Common Lisp lispimplementationversion: Version 1.4dev (WindowsX8632)  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20090629 13:10 Message: FWIW, this error seems to be coming from FACT5 in factor.lisp. It wants to make a square array of dimensions 7891 by 7891.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2813116&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090628 20:05:10

Bugs item #932076, was opened at 20040409 01:06 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=932076&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: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: ode2( 'diff(y,x)=%i*y+sin(x), y, x) => div by 0 Initial Comment: ode2( 'diff(y,x)=%i*y+sin(x), y, x) gives division by 0  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090628 22:05 Message: With the current CVS version 5.18post this differential equation gives a correct result: (%i53) ode2('diff(y,x)%i*ysin(x),y,x); (%o53) y = (%c%i*(x%i*%e^(2*%i*x)/2)/2)*%e^(%i*x) (%i54) expand(%); (%o54) y = %i*x*%e^(%i*x)/2+%c*%e^(%i*x)%e^(%i*x)/4 I think this is now correct because of an improvement of the routine SCEINT in sin.lisp with revision 1.48. Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060729 08:07 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Observed in 5.9.3cvs.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20040420 01:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 Same problem if you solve the equation 'diff(y,x)= k*y+sin(x)  the solution is not valid at k=%i, but it doesn't ask. Correct solution for k=%i is y = ((x%i*%c%i)*sin(x)+(%i*x%c)*cos(x))/2  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=932076&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090627 02:36:11

Bugs item #2813116, was opened at 20090626 21:36 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2813116&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: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Lisp error in factor Initial Comment: OK, I need to find a simple case, but for now: (this was an attempt to check a solution from to_poly_solver, by the way.) (%o18) [0,0, %e^(17479/4594)*(%e^(12485/2297)+%e^(9988/2297)+%e^(7491/2297) +(2*%e^(4994/2297)%e^(2497/2297)2) *%e^(12485/4594)+%e^(4994/2297)) /2, %e^(17479/4594)*(%e^(12485/2297)+%e^(9988/2297)+%e^(7491/2297) +(2*%e^(4994/2297)%e^(2497/2297)2) *%e^(12485/4594)+%e^(4994/2297)) /2, %e^(3/1801439850948197)*(%e^(6/1801439850948197) *(%i*sin(2189/320)+cos(2189/320)) %i*sin(2189/320)+cos(2189/320) +%e^(1/1801439850948197) *(2*%i*sin(2189/480)2*cos(2189/480)) +%e^(5/1801439850948197) *(2*%i*sin(2189/480)2*cos(2189/480)) +%e^(4/1801439850948197) *(%i*sin(2189/960)+cos(2189/960)) +%e^(2/1801439850948197) *(cos(2189/960)%i*sin(2189/960)) %e^(3/1801439850948197)) /2, %e^(3/1801439850948197)*(%e^(6/1801439850948197) *(cos(2189/320)%i*sin(2189/320)) +%i*sin(2189/320)+cos(2189/320) +%e^(5/1801439850948197) *(2*%i*sin(2189/480)2*cos(2189/480)) +%e^(1/1801439850948197) *(2*%i*sin(2189/480)2*cos(2189/480)) +%e^(2/1801439850948197) *(%i*sin(2189/960)+cos(2189/960)) +%e^(4/1801439850948197) *(cos(2189/960)%i*sin(2189/960)) %e^(3/1801439850948197)) /2] (%i19) factor(%); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: value 62267881 is not of the expected type (UNSIGNEDBYTE 24). Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. (%i20) build_info(); Maxima version: 5.18post Maxima build date: 0:49 6/25/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: Clozure Common Lisp lispimplementationversion: Version 1.4dev (WindowsX8632)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2813116&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090627 02:20:27

Bugs item #2805317, was opened at 20090612 08:48 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sfrobot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2805317&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: Wont Fix Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: romberg(sin(x)^3,x,0,2*%pi) does't work Initial Comment: Good day! I have problem with my Maxima: build_info()$ Maxima version: 5.16.2 Maxima build date: 7:44 8/18/2008 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 When I integrate romberg(sin(x)^3,x,0,2*%pi) I get error: `romberg' failed to converge  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); And if power is 5,7 and so on. What's wrong?  >Comment By: SourceForge Robot (sfrobot) Date: 20090627 02:20 Message: This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by the administrator of this Tracker).  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20090612 15:36 Message: Well, the problem with this integral is that it is exactly zero, which makes it difficult for any numerical method. (quad_qags returns approx 1e17 and prints a warning message.) Agreed that we won't try to fix it, but it's not just a weakness in romberg.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090612 13:29 Message: There have been related reports in the past. romberg tries to find a numerical solution, but is not always succesful. There are better routines like the quadpack functions to do a numerical integration. There is nothing wrong with the implementation. It is a weakness of the romberg algorithm. Maxima can calculate an exact definite integral for the function of this bug report and the more general function sin(x)^n, with n a positive integer. The results are: (%i1) declare(n,odd)$ (%i2) assume(n>0)$ (%i3) integrate(sin(x)^n,x,0,2*%pi); (%o3) 0 (%i4) declare(k,even)$ (%i5) assume(k>0)$ (%i6) integrate(sin(x)^k,x,0,2*%pi); (%o6) 2*beta(1/2,(k+1)/2) Setting this bug report to "won't fix" and the status to pending. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2805317&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090626 12:39:33

Bugs item #2812732, was opened at 20090626 14:39 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by mgma You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2812732&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: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: mgma (mgma) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Limit returns a Lisp error Initial Comment: The call limit((sin(W)(a+1)*W*cos(W)+a*W)/W^2, W, 0); returns the message Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Error in $LIMIT [or a callee]: NIL is not of type NUMBER. Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. My installation is the following: Maxima version: 5.18.1 Maxima build date: 20:57 4/19/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8 Regards, Miguel  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2812732&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090625 17:02:36

Bugs item #751934, was opened at 20030610 16:13 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=751934&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: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inconsistent simplification of 1.0*x etc. Initial Comment: Maxima is sloppy about simplifications involving floating point numbers. Notation: ==> means simplifies to (OK) means I think this is correct (No!) means I think this is incorrect 1.0*x ==> x (No!) Prefer: 1.0*x though 2.0*x ==> 2.0*x (OK) 0.0*x ==> 0.0 (OK) 2.0*x2.0*x ==> 0 (No!) Prefer: 0.0 though 2.02.0 ==> 0.0 (OK) (2.02.0)*x ==> 0.0 (OK) x^1.0 ==> x (No!) Prefer: x^1.0 though x^2.0 ==> x^2.0 (OK) x^1.0 ==> x^1.0 (OK) (normally displays as 1/ (x^1.0)) x+0.0 ==> x (???) I am not sure whether this is correct. All the above cases also happen with mixed float/fixed and with bfloats.  Whenever the result depends on the floatingpoint precision, the float must be maintained.  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090625 19:02 Message: The suggested change to PLUSIN has been committed with revision 1.81 of simp.lisp. Furthermore code to preserve the type of the numbers 1.0 and 1.0b0 has been added to the function EXPTRL. We get the expected results of the last posting and in addition: (%i3) x^1.0; (%o3) x^1.0 (%i4) x^1.0b0; (%o4) x^1.0b0 Closing this bug report as fixed. Hint: It is possible to construct more complicated expressions, where we lose the type of the number again. Perhaps we should open a new bug report for such cases. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090625 00:42 Message: Because of the the changes with revision 1.80 to TMS, TIMESIN and PLUSIN in simp.lisp some more examples simplifies correctly. When we add the following code to PLUSIN, even more examples simplify as expected. ;; (cadadr fm) is zero, add it to the first term of fm to preserve the type. (rplaca fm (add (car fm) (cadadr fm))) (return (rplacd fm (cddr fm))) These are some results. First for floating point numbers; (%i28) 0.0*x; (%o28) 0.0 (%i29) 1.0*x; (%o29) 1.0*x (%i30) 2.0*x2.0*x; (%o30) 0.0 The simplification with bigfloat numbers: (%i31) 0.0b0*x; (%o31) 0.0b0 (%i32) 1.0b0*x; (%o32) 1.0b0*x (%i33) 2.0b0*x2.0b0*x; (%o33) 0.0b0 And some examples with mixed numbers: (%i34) 2*x2.0*x; (%o34) 0.0 (%i35) 2.0*x2*x; (%o35) 0.0 (%i36) 2.0b0*x2*x; (%o36) 0.0b0 (%i37) 2.0b0*x2.0*x; (%o37) 0.0b0 Only the example x^1.0 > x^1.0 is missing. This can be changed in simpexpt. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=751934&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090625 04:32:54

Bugs item #2811926, was opened at 20090624 22:01 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2811926&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: integrate(exp(x^(%i)),x,0,1); => Is %i an integer? Initial Comment: integrate(exp(x^(%i)),x,0,1); => Is %i an integer?  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090624 23:32 Message: Answering yes gives two more questions and a spurious value for the integral (%i98) integrate(exp(x^(%i)),x,0,1); Is %i an integer?no; Is yx positive or negative?pos; Is yx1 positive, negative, or zero?pos; (%o98) %i*gamma_incomplete(%i,1)true  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2811926&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090625 03:01:32

Bugs item #2811926, was opened at 20090624 21:01 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2811926&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: integrate(exp(x^(%i)),x,0,1); => Is %i an integer? Initial Comment: integrate(exp(x^(%i)),x,0,1); => Is %i an integer?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2811926&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090624 22:43:42

Bugs item #751934, was opened at 20030610 16:13 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=751934&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: Inconsistent simplification of 1.0*x etc. Initial Comment: Maxima is sloppy about simplifications involving floating point numbers. Notation: ==> means simplifies to (OK) means I think this is correct (No!) means I think this is incorrect 1.0*x ==> x (No!) Prefer: 1.0*x though 2.0*x ==> 2.0*x (OK) 0.0*x ==> 0.0 (OK) 2.0*x2.0*x ==> 0 (No!) Prefer: 0.0 though 2.02.0 ==> 0.0 (OK) (2.02.0)*x ==> 0.0 (OK) x^1.0 ==> x (No!) Prefer: x^1.0 though x^2.0 ==> x^2.0 (OK) x^1.0 ==> x^1.0 (OK) (normally displays as 1/ (x^1.0)) x+0.0 ==> x (???) I am not sure whether this is correct. All the above cases also happen with mixed float/fixed and with bfloats.  Whenever the result depends on the floatingpoint precision, the float must be maintained.  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090625 00:42 Message: Because of the the changes with revision 1.80 to TMS, TIMESIN and PLUSIN in simp.lisp some more examples simplifies correctly. When we add the following code to PLUSIN, even more examples simplify as expected. ;; (cadadr fm) is zero, add it to the first term of fm to preserve the type. (rplaca fm (add (car fm) (cadadr fm))) (return (rplacd fm (cddr fm))) These are some results. First for floating point numbers; (%i28) 0.0*x; (%o28) 0.0 (%i29) 1.0*x; (%o29) 1.0*x (%i30) 2.0*x2.0*x; (%o30) 0.0 The simplification with bigfloat numbers: (%i31) 0.0b0*x; (%o31) 0.0b0 (%i32) 1.0b0*x; (%o32) 1.0b0*x (%i33) 2.0b0*x2.0b0*x; (%o33) 0.0b0 And some examples with mixed numbers: (%i34) 2*x2.0*x; (%o34) 0.0 (%i35) 2.0*x2*x; (%o35) 0.0 (%i36) 2.0b0*x2*x; (%o36) 0.0b0 (%i37) 2.0b0*x2.0*x; (%o37) 0.0b0 Only the example x^1.0 > x^1.0 is missing. This can be changed in simpexpt. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=751934&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090624 10:58:24

Bugs item #924868, was opened at 20040328 07:53 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=924868&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: defint log(sqrt(q^21)+1) asks about YX Initial Comment: T: log(sqrt(q^21)+1); integrate(T,q,0,1) asks the question: Is YX  1 positive, negative, or zero? Note that the variable YX does not appear in the integrand! By the way, if you answer Pos, you get the error SIGN called on an imaginary argument: %I and if you answer Neg, you get the error Quotient by a polynomial of higher degree (with default GCD) Maxima 5.9.0 gcl 2.5.0 W2k  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20090624 06:57 Message: Fixed in defint.lisp rev 1.62  putprop internal for yx so doesn't appear in user questions. (%i3) T: log(sqrt(q^21)+1); (%o3) log(sqrt(q^21)+1) (%i4) integrate(T,q,0,1); (%o4) sqrt(2)*asinh(1)%i*%pi/sqrt(2)+%i*%pi/2+1 (%i5) integrate(exp(x^(1/2)),x,0,1); (%o5) 2  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060729 01:17 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Both examples (T: log(sqrt(q^21)+1), integrate(T,q,0,1) and integrate(exp(x^(1/2)),x,0,1)) observed in 5.9.3cvs.  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20041004 17:15 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 This works much better in maxima 5.9.1, but it still asks about YX. It's trying to solve yx  sqrt(q^1+1)  1 for q. Perhaps for some kind of substitution.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20041001 12:28 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 integrate(exp(x^(1/2)),x,0,1) also asks about YX, but gets the correct answer (2) regardless of what you answer. Maxima version: 5.9.0.9beta2 Maxima build date: 10:50 7/27/2004 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: Kyoto Common Lisp lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.3  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=924868&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090623 22:15:58

Bugs item #2729193, was opened at 20090404 02:06 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2729193&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: Pending Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Trojan in there Initial Comment: 1. Tries to connect to the internet during installation  downloading trojan? 2. Program blocked by Windows Security during execution: Sloppy programming or trying to defeat protections?  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090624 00:15 Message: There are no further informations about the Windows version. No specific problem is reported. Perhaps some problems with Windows VISTA? Setting the status of this bug report to pending. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2729193&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090623 21:22:34

Bugs item #1996354, was opened at 20080617 20:12 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1996354&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: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: unsimplifed result from expand Initial Comment: (%i52) (%e^(2*sqrt(2))*(%e^(2*sqrt(2))+2*%e^sqrt(2)+1)^2)/16+(%e^(2*sqrt(2))*(%e^(2*sqrt(2)) 2*%e^sqrt(2)+1)^2)/16(%e^(2*sqrt(2))*(%e^(2*sqrt(2))1)^2)/8$ /* should be 1 */ (%i53) expand(%); (%o53) %e^(2^(3/2)2*sqrt(2))/2+1/2 (%i54) expand(%,0,0); (%o54) 1  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090623 23:22 Message: With revision 1.80 of simp.lisp the example simplifies as expected: (%i6) %e^2^(3/2)*(%e^2^(3/2)+2*%e^sqrt(2)+1)^2/16 +%e^2^(3/2)*(%e^2^(3/2)2*%e^sqrt(2)+1)^2/16 %e^2^(3/2)*(%e^2^(3/2)1)^2/8$ (%i7) expand(%); (%o7) 1 Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20080807 00:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1797506 Originator: NO seems to be a basic simplification problem. (%i8) 2^(1/2)*2  2*2^(1/2); (%o8) 2^(3/2)2*sqrt(2) (%i9) 2^(3/2)2*sqrt(2); (%o9) 0  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1996354&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090623 21:18:45

Bugs item #1853191, was opened at 20071218 16:57 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1853191&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  Polynomials Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: rat(2/sqrt(2)),algebraic doesn't cancel Initial Comment: ex: rat(2/sqrt(2)) => 2/sqrt(2) (previous bug report) rat(ex),algebraic => 2*sqrt(2)/2 !! Maxima 5.13.0 GCL 2.6.8 Windows  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090623 23:18 Message: With revision 1.80 of simp.lisp this example simplifies as expected: (%i2) ex:rat(2/sqrt(2)); (%o2) sqrt(2) (%i3) rat(ex),algebraic; (%o3) sqrt(2) Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20080615 03:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Originator: NO same behavior observed in Maxima 5.14.99rc1 + GCL + Windows.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1853191&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090623 21:16:22

Bugs item #1480562, was opened at 20060502 19:46 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1480562&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: 3 Private: No Submitted By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 2*a*2^k isn't simplified to a*2^(k+1) Initial Comment: 2*a*2^k isn't simplified. But a*2^k*2 is. There are many other situations where we don't simplify such products.  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090623 23:16 Message: With revision 1.80 of simp.lisp the example simplifies as expected: (%i1) 2*a*2^k; (%o1) a*2^(k+1) Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060824 06:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 Observed in 5.9.3.99rc2. Looks like this is happening (or not happening) in SIMPTIMES.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1480562&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090623 21:12:32

Bugs item #1927178, was opened at 20080327 16:00 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1927178&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: 3 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: sqrt(2) ./ 2 vs 1/sqrt(2) Initial Comment: It's not wrong, but it's not right either: (%i3) integrate(sin(t),t,%pi/4,3*%pi/4); (%o3) sqrt(2)/2+1/sqrt(2)  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090623 23:12 Message: With revision 1.80 of simp.lisp the example simplifies as expected: (%i19) integrate(sin(t),t,%pi/4,3*%pi/4); (%o19) sqrt(2) Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1927178&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090623 21:09:02

Bugs item #1923119, was opened at 20080322 18:09 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1923119&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: 4 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 1/sqrt(8)  sqrt(8) / 8 /> 0 Initial Comment: (%i17) 1/sqrt(8)  sqrt(8) / 8; (%o17) 1/(2*sqrt(2))1/2^(3/2) (%i18) expand(%,0,0); (%o18) 0 Here I think (%o17) is unsimplifiedthe expand(%,0,0) shouldn't be required.  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090623 23:08 Message: With revision 1.80 of simp.lisp the example simplifies as expected: (%i14) 1/sqrt(8)  sqrt(8) / 8; (%o14) 0 Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090303 10:44 Message: Also: (%i45) sqrt(8) / 8; (%o45) 1/2^(3/2) (%i46) expand(%,0,0); (%o46) 1/(2*sqrt(2))  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1923119&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090623 21:05:28

Bugs item #2029041, was opened at 20080727 02:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2029041&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: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: a*sqrt(2)/2 unsimplified Initial Comment: a*sqrt(2)/2 => 2^(1/2)*a whereas the normal display form is a/sqrt(2). Internal form is: ((MTIMES SIMP) ((MEXPT) 2 ((RAT SIMP) 1 2)) $A) ^^ no simp marker! expand(%,0,0) correctly gives: ((MTIMES SIMP) ((MEXPT SIMP) 2 ((RAT SIMP) 1 2)) $A) which displays correctly.  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090623 23:05 Message: With revision 1.80 of simp.lisp we get the expected simplification: (%i10) a*sqrt(2)/2; (%o10) a/sqrt(2) Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20080730 13:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=895922 Originator: NO By the way: (%i1) a : 1/sqrt(2)$ (%i2) b : 5*sqrt(2)/2$ (%i3) to_lisp(); No simp marker with add2: MAXIMA> (add2 (meval '$a) (meval '$b)) ((MTIMES SIMP) 6 ((MEXPT) 2 ((RAT SIMP) 1 2))) A simp marker with add: MAXIMA> (add (meval '$a) (meval '$b)) ((MTIMES SIMP) 6 ((MEXPT SIMP) 2 ((RAT SIMP) 1 2)))  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2029041&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090623 20:59:04

Bugs item #721575, was opened at 20030415 05:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus 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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed 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: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090623 22:59 Message: With revision 1.80 of simp.lisp the initial problem simplifies as expected: (%i6) 2/sqrt(2); (%o6) sqrt(2) Furthermore we have: (%i7) 1/sqrt(2)*2; (%o7) sqrt(2) (%i8) (1/2)*sqrt(2); (%o8) 1/sqrt(2) (%i9) sqrt(2)/2; (%o9) 1/sqrt(2) Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20080328 17:42 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28849 Originator: NO The issue appears to be in timesin. The basic issue is that timesin isn't commutative, as dgildea shows. I have a partial fix for this which fixes this particular issue, but it causes many failures in the testsuite, mostly due to a different ordering of the answer. But some tests now cause errors to be signaled, and some are no longer simplified as before or not simplified at all. Bummer.  Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20080111 13:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1797506 Originator: NO (%i6) (1/2)*sqrt(2); (%o6) sqrt(2)/2 (%i7) sqrt(2)*(1/2); (%o7) 1/sqrt(2)  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20071219 15:59 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: 20031009 05:21 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 20:53 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 20:44 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...>  20090623 08:33:02

Bugs item #2805251, was opened at 20090612 15:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by satoshi_adachi You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2805251&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: Satoshi Adachi (satoshi_adachi) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Absence of extract_categories.sh and others in maxima5.18.1 Initial Comment: Dear Developers of Maxima, Today, I built maxima5.18.1 from its source code. The usual procedure configure > make > make install failed at the last stage "make install" as follows:  ... ... Making install in doc Making install in info pattern=`printf "\r$"` ; \ bad_files=`find . name '*.texi' print  xargs grep E l e "$pattern"` ; \ [ z "$bad_files" ]  ( echo "WARNING: The following files have DOSstyle EOLs: $bad_files" ; \ echo "Run /doc/info/fix_crlf to fix the problem." ) pattern=`printf "\t"` ; \ bad_files=`find . name '*.texi' print  xargs grep E l e "$pattern"` ; \ [ z "$bad_files" ]  ( echo "WARNING: The following files have unexpanded Tabs: $bad_files" ; \ echo "Run /doc/info/fix_tab to fix the problem." ) make[4]: Nothing to be done for `installexecam'. sh extract_categories.sh maxima sh: extract_categories.sh: No such file or directory make[4]: *** [maxima.html] Error 127 make[3]: *** [installam] Error 2 make[2]: *** [installrecursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [installrecursive] Error 1 make: *** [installrecursive] Error 1  This failure is caused by the absence of three files extract_categories.sh extract_categories1.awk extract_categories1.sed in the directory "maxima5.18.1/doc/info". To fix this problem, I have copied these three files from maxima5.17.1 to maxima5.18.1. Then, "make install" succeeds as is expected. Please include the above three files in the distribution of the source code of the current version of Maxima. Also please check that your procedure to pack a distrbution of the source code of Maxima from its current source tree does not forget the above three files to include. Sincerely yours, Satoshi Adachi  Comment By: Satoshi Adachi (satoshi_adachi) Date: 20090623 17:31 Message: Dear Mr. Robert Dodier, Thank you for your investigation. My answer to each of your equations is as follows: >From where did you obtain the source code? > As usual, the source code is obtained from sourceforge. Did you obtain it from CVS or from a tar.gz? > From maxima5.18.1.tar.gz. Are the maxima_*.html files present in the source code you obtained? > (i) Yes! When the intact source tree is prepared by the command sequence "zcat maxima5.18.1.tar.gz  tar xvf  ". The files "maxima_*.html" EXIST in the directory "maxima5.18.1/doc/info". *** Now, I understand what is the cause of my trouble. *** (ii) When "./configure; make clean" is executed in the directory "maxima5.18.1", I found that all of the files "doc/info/maxima_*.html" are deleted. I also found that "make distclean" also deletes all of these files. >From this experiment, the extract_categories scripts seem to be necessary in the source code distribution of Maxima. Otherwise, once "make clean" is executed, the source code tree becomes defective to build and install the Maxima system. Please fix this problem in any way. Sincerely yours, Satoshi Adachi  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20090619 08:10 Message: The extract_categories scripts are to build the category system in the html documentation. The tar.gz file is supposed to contain the generated documentation files, so it is not necessary to run the extract_categories scripts. So it appears that either (1) your tar.gz doesn't contain the html files, or (2) make is trying to rebuild some files (the html files) when it doesn't need to. >From where did you obtain the source code? Did you obtain it from CVS or from a tar.gz? Are the maxima_*.html files present in the source code you obtained? What is your operating system?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2805251&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090622 02:20:52

Bugs item #814957, was opened at 20030930 08:17 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sfrobot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=814957&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: Xmaxima or other UI Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: Out of Date Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: No internet => No xMaxima Initial Comment: The windows compiled version of xMaxima refuses to work if a connection to internet is not available and working. A message saying "Error starting Maxima: Could not open a socket" is issued. After that the window xMaxima keeps mute, no prompt, no echo, nothing... If we have no Internet connection how can we keep working with Maxima through the xMaxima interface?  >Comment By: SourceForge Robot (sfrobot) Date: 20090622 02:20 Message: This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by the administrator of this Tracker).  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090607 23:53 Message: Since the last posting there seems to be no more problems with this topic. Setting this bug report to out of date and pending. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Andrej Vodopivec (andrejv) Date: 20071007 19:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1179910 Originator: NO Fedora users should check if the file /etc/hosts contains the following line 127.0.0.1 localhost If it does not, then it needs to be added. Andrej  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071007 10:15 Message: Logged In: NO No... wxMaxima not normal start without internet, loopback interface always up ok. Only if ppp0 is down state wxMaxima can con connect to maxima.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071007 09:57 Message: Logged In: NO Linux home 2.6.22.757.fc6 #1 SMP Fri Sep 21 19:26:56 EDT 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux RedHat Fedore 7 last update 7 october 2007 If internet on then wxMaxima normal start and solve expression. Without internet wxMaxima notify "Not connected to maxima!". Console application maxima normal start and notmal solve without internet. If I right undestand wxMaxima need loopback 127.0.0.1 I'll send mail to fedore support about loopback. I hope, that developers wxMaxima make notify that wxMaxima need loopback if it seems.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071007 09:56 Message: Logged In: NO Linux home 2.6.22.757.fc6 #1 SMP Fri Sep 21 19:26:56 EDT 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux RedHat Fedore 7 last update 7 october 2007 If internet on then wxMaxima normal start and solve expression. Without internet wxMaxima notify "Not connected to maxima!". Console application maxima normal start and notmal solve without internet. If I right undestand wxMaxima need loopback 127.0.0.1 I'll send mail to fedore support about loopback. I hope, that developers wxMaxima make notify that wxMaxima need loopback if it seems.  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20071007 09:56 Message: Logged In: NO Linux home 2.6.22.757.fc6 #1 SMP Fri Sep 21 19:26:56 EDT 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux RedHat Fedore 7 last update 7 october 2007 If internet on then wxMaxima normal start and solve expression. Without internet wxMaxima notify "Not connected to maxima!". Console application maxima normal start and notmal solve without internet. If I right undestand wxMaxima need loopback 127.0.0.1 I'll send mail to fedore support about loopback. I hope, that developers wxMaxima make notify that wxMaxima need loopback if it seems.  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060710 03:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 I wonder just how much network stuff needs to be active in order to enable the Maxima <> Xmaxima connection. It seems like just having the network stuff running with the loopback address (127.0.0.1) should be enough. Should be possible to test by shutting down any other interfaces and then trying to launch Xmaxima.  Comment By: Peter Ulrich Kruppa (pukruppa) Date: 20031111 15:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=778327 Some of my students have reported this problem to me, too, although everything on my laptop (WinXP Home Edition) works fine  even without internet connection. The only significant difference to their machines, I can think of, is that I once activated XP's compatibility mode for older programs (sorry, I don't know the exact words since I am running XP in german  do search for "compatibility" in the help menu and reinstall maxima with it). Just one possibility. Regards, Uli.  Comment By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Date: 20030930 18:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=588346 An active Internet connection is not required by xMaxima. However, you must have sockets installed, working, and enabled, because Maxima uses them for interprocess communication. Firewall software may be closing off sockets, for example.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=814957&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090621 23:09:10

Bugs item #2808568, was opened at 20090618 20:34 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2808568&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: doug edmunds (dougedmunds) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Reserved words that aren't reserved Initial Comment: Maxima version: 5.18.1 Maxima build date: 20:57 4/19/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  The manual (chapter 6.1) lists a group of words "which cannot be used as variable names". However on testing, I find that several of them will accept variable assignments, without reporting an error. The following 7 'reserved words' will take an assignment: [integrate, diff, in, at, limit, sum, product] for example, limit: 20; is accepted without error or warning. The other reserved words will not accept variable assignment, i.e. "step:1;" Incorrect syntax: : is not a prefix operator step:1  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090622 01:09 Message: These reserved words are not declared to be a SYSCONST. This can be changed, e. g. (setf (get '$integrate 'sysconst) t) The following symbols are already declared to be a SYSCONST. und, ind, zeroa, zerob, inf, minf, infinity, %pi, %i, %e, %phi, %gamma Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2808568&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090619 08:27:44

Bugs item #2808861, was opened at 20090619 17:27 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by niitsuma You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2808861&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  Translator Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Hirotaka NIITSUMA (niitsuma) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: list function arguments with mode_declare in translate Initial Comment: (%i128) build_info()$ Maxima version: 5.18.1 Maxima build date: 0:54 5/10/2009 host type: i686pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: CLISP lispimplementationversion: 2.42 (20071016) (built 3403310376) (memory 3450873281) Translated function who has list argument with mode_declare(completearray ) does not wok. % wf(v):=block(mode_declare(completearray(v[2] ),float),return(v[1]+v[2])) Before translate it works %wf([1,2]) /* > 3 */ But after translate %translate(wf) %wf([1,2]) Maxima encountered a Lisp error: EVAL: undefined function $V Automatically continuing. To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. In the translated code, %compfile("tmp.lisp",wf) $ more tmp.lisp ... RETURN (+ ($V 1 ) ($V 2) ... $V is dealed as function.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2808861&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090618 23:10:46

Bugs item #2805251, was opened at 20090612 00:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2805251&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: Satoshi Adachi (satoshi_adachi) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Absence of extract_categories.sh and others in maxima5.18.1 Initial Comment: Dear Developers of Maxima, Today, I built maxima5.18.1 from its source code. The usual procedure configure > make > make install failed at the last stage "make install" as follows:  ... ... Making install in doc Making install in info pattern=`printf "\r$"` ; \ bad_files=`find . name '*.texi' print  xargs grep E l e "$pattern"` ; \ [ z "$bad_files" ]  ( echo "WARNING: The following files have DOSstyle EOLs: $bad_files" ; \ echo "Run /doc/info/fix_crlf to fix the problem." ) pattern=`printf "\t"` ; \ bad_files=`find . name '*.texi' print  xargs grep E l e "$pattern"` ; \ [ z "$bad_files" ]  ( echo "WARNING: The following files have unexpanded Tabs: $bad_files" ; \ echo "Run /doc/info/fix_tab to fix the problem." ) make[4]: Nothing to be done for `installexecam'. sh extract_categories.sh maxima sh: extract_categories.sh: No such file or directory make[4]: *** [maxima.html] Error 127 make[3]: *** [installam] Error 2 make[2]: *** [installrecursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [installrecursive] Error 1 make: *** [installrecursive] Error 1  This failure is caused by the absence of three files extract_categories.sh extract_categories1.awk extract_categories1.sed in the directory "maxima5.18.1/doc/info". To fix this problem, I have copied these three files from maxima5.17.1 to maxima5.18.1. Then, "make install" succeeds as is expected. Please include the above three files in the distribution of the source code of the current version of Maxima. Also please check that your procedure to pack a distrbution of the source code of Maxima from its current source tree does not forget the above three files to include. Sincerely yours, Satoshi Adachi  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20090618 17:10 Message: The extract_categories scripts are to build the category system in the html documentation. The tar.gz file is supposed to contain the generated documentation files, so it is not necessary to run the extract_categories scripts. So it appears that either (1) your tar.gz doesn't contain the html files, or (2) make is trying to rebuild some files (the html files) when it doesn't need to. >From where did you obtain the source code? Did you obtain it from CVS or from a tar.gz? Are the maxima_*.html files present in the source code you obtained? What is your operating system?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2805251&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20090618 18:34:31

Bugs item #2808568, was opened at 20090618 11:34 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by dougedmunds You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2808568&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: doug edmunds (dougedmunds) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Reserved words that aren't reserved Initial Comment: Maxima version: 5.18.1 Maxima build date: 20:57 4/19/2009 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  The manual (chapter 6.1) lists a group of words "which cannot be used as variable names". However on testing, I find that several of them will accept variable assignments, without reporting an error. The following 7 'reserved words' will take an assignment: [integrate, diff, in, at, limit, sum, product] for example, limit: 20; is accepted without error or warning. The other reserved words will not accept variable assignment, i.e. "step:1;" Incorrect syntax: : is not a prefix operator step:1  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2808568&group_id=4933 