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}
(54) 
_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 





1

2
(1) 
3

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

13

14

15
(2) 
16
(2) 
17
(9) 
18
(1) 
19

20
(3) 
21

22

23

24

25

26
(2) 
27

28
(2) 
29
(5) 
30
(4) 
31
(8) 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091010 16:34:09

Bugs item #2876277, was opened at 20091010 18:34 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2876277&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: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: hgfred([3/2,2],[5/2],x) not fully simplified Initial Comment: (%i4) hgfred([3/2,2],[5/2],x); (%o4) 8*jacobi_p(2,3/2,3,2*x+1)/35 This can be further simplified: (%i5) ev(%),nouns; (%o5) 3*x^2/7+6*x/5+1 The problem is that we use an unsimplified Jacobi P noun form for the result in the routine 2f1polys. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2876277&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091010 09:07:33

Bugs item #2876137, was opened at 20091010 10:07 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by l_butler You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2876137&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: Leo Butler (l_butler) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: noninteractive not following whole decision tree Initial Comment: The noninteractive code is not correctly following the decision tree that is thrown up by 'integrate' in the following example. (%i1) load(noninteractive); (%o1) "/home/work/maxima/maxima5.19.2/share/contrib/noninteractive/noninteractive.mac" (%i2) integrate(%e^(%i*k*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf); (%o2) if k1 < 0 then integrate(%e^(%i*k*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf) elseif equal(k1,0) then %pi else 0 Here is what a manual walkthrough yields: (%i1) integrate(%e^(%i*k*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf); Is k1 positive, negative, or zero? z; (%o1) %pi (%i2) integrate(%e^(%i*k*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf); Is k1 positive, negative, or zero? n; Is k+1 positive, negative, or zero? z; (%o2) 0 (%i3) integrate(%e^(%i*k*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf); Is k1 positive, negative, or zero? n; Is k+1 positive, negative, or zero? n; (%o3) 0 (%i4) integrate(%e^(%i*k*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf); Is k1 positive, negative, or zero? n; Is k+1 positive, negative, or zero? p; (%o4) %pi (%i5) integrate(%e^(%i*k*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf); Is k1 positive, negative, or zero? p; (%o5) 0  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2876137&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091009 17:15:33

Bugs item #2871658, was opened at 20091002 05:01 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2871658&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: dsimcha (dsimcha) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: expr, simp=false; : simp=false has no effect. Initial Comment: (%i1) x/x, simp:false; (%o1) 1 (%i2) simp : false; (%o2) false (%i3) x/x; (%o3) x/x (%i4) x/x, simp : true; (%o4) 1 (%i5) x/x; (%o5) x/x  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091009 19:15 Message: The evaluator and the simplifier do it correct. We can see it at the Lisp level: The output is wrong: (%i1) a:x/x,simp:false; (%o1) 1 But internally the expression is not simplified: (%i2) :lisp $a ((MQUOTIENT) $X $X) Therefore we have to look into the display routines. The expression is again simplified. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2871658&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091009 16:13:00

Bugs item #2875784, was opened at 20091009 16:38 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by l_butler You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2875784&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: Leo Butler (l_butler) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: fourier integral incorrect Initial Comment: The following is incorrect: (%i2) I : 'integrate(%e^(%i*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf); (%o2) 'integrate(%e^(%i*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf) (%i3) J : changevar(I,y+x,y,x); (%o3) 'integrate(%e^(%i*y)*sin(y)/y,y,minf,inf) (%i4) ev(I,nouns); (%o4) %pi (%i5) ev(J,nouns); (%o5) 0  >Comment By: Leo Butler (l_butler) Date: 20091009 17:13 Message: I should add that there are two problems above: first, I and J should be equal; second, the correct answer should be (%i19) integrate(cos(x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf); (%o19) %pi/2  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2875784&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091009 15:52:03

Bugs item #2234113, was opened at 20081107 12:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by l_butler You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2234113&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  Plotting Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: mluca (bluluca789) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: plot2d odd roots of X plots only positive values Initial Comment: The bug is only from version 5.14.x (tested for windows versions), typing plot2d(x^(1/3),[x,5,5]) the plot is only for x>0. For versions up to 5.13.x the plot is correct. Calculating x(1/3) with x<0, the result is correct (%i1) 27^(1/3); (%o1) 3 The plot3d function is not affected by this problem  Comment By: Leo Butler (l_butler) Date: 20091009 16:51 Message: In v5.19.2, this plot command works as you wish. I suggest upgrading your version of Maxima, since it is rather old.  Comment By: mluca (bluluca789) Date: 20090715 12:34 Message: The new version of maxima gives a complex number for the cube root of a negative value, and the plot2d is only for real numbers.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2234113&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091009 15:38:09

Bugs item #2875784, was opened at 20091009 16:38 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by l_butler You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2875784&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: Leo Butler (l_butler) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: fourier integral incorrect Initial Comment: The following is incorrect: (%i2) I : 'integrate(%e^(%i*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf); (%o2) 'integrate(%e^(%i*x)*sin(x)/x,x,minf,inf) (%i3) J : changevar(I,y+x,y,x); (%o3) 'integrate(%e^(%i*y)*sin(y)/y,y,minf,inf) (%i4) ev(I,nouns); (%o4) %pi (%i5) ev(J,nouns); (%o5) 0  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2875784&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091008 20:19:44

Bugs item #2477795, was opened at 20081230 23:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2477795&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: "assume":problems with fractions or multiples of %pi and %e Initial Comment: I was trying to bound a variable within 0 and %pi/2, and I have notices that if the assumptions made with "assume" contain a fraction or a multiple of %pi or %e (I've tryed these for now) the results of a query made with "is" are wrong. Example (%i1) assume(a>0,a<%pi/2); %pi (%o1) [a > 0,  > a] 2 does not give a correct result if a query with "is" is done. In fact: (%i2) is(a>%pi/2); (%o2) false (%i3) is(a>%pi); (%o3) unknown the %o3 "unknown" is wrong, it sholud be evaluated to false. The same problem if one, in example, defines a variable bounded within 0 and 2*%pi: (%i6) assume(b>0,b<2*%pi); (%o6) [b > 0, 2 %pi > b] (%i7) is(b>3*%pi); (%o7) unknown also this is wrong, it should be false. Nothing wrong happens if: (%i8) assume(c>0,c<%pi); (%o8) [c > 0, c < %pi] (%i9) is(c>2*%pi); (%o9) false There are the same problems with "assume" and fractions or multiples of %e. Please note the different output of Maxima for the above assumptions: (%i8) assume(c>0,c<%pi); (%o8) [c > 0, c < %pi] here is c that is defined as a function of %pi, but... (%i1) assume(a>0,a<%pi/2); %pi (%o1) [a > 0,  > a] 2 %i6) assume(b>0,b<2*%pi); (%o6) [b > 0, 2 %pi > b] here are %pi/2 and 2*%pi that seems to be redefined in function of a and b. Could be here the problem? If this problem will be solved, could I hope one day to see this answer from "is": assume(a>0,a<%pi/2); is(sin(a)>0); true instead of the actual "unknown" :)? It would be very useful if Maxima could understand the sign of trigonometric functions with the proper assumptions. Stefano f e r r i s t e a t g m a i l d o t c o m  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091008 22:19 Message: A routine learnnumer has been added with revision 1.58 of compar.lisp. The examples of this bug report work as expected: (%i1) assume(a>0,a<%pi/2); (%o1) [a > 0,%pi/2 > a] (%i2) is(a>%pi/2); (%o2) false (%i3) is(a>%pi); (%o3) false (%i4) assume(b>0,b<2*%pi); (%o4) [b > 0,2*%pi > b] (%i5) is(b>3*%pi); (%o5) false (%i10) assume(abs(x) < sin(1)+%e/2); (%o10) [sin(1)+%e/2 > abs(x)] (%i11) is(x<2*%e); (%o11) true (%i12) is(x>2*%e); (%o12) true Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20081230 23:14 Message: I forgot to say that I am using Maxima 5.17.0, but on the Maxima mailing list Alexey Beshenov told me that also the CVS version has this problem. Sorry also for the bad formatting of %pi/2 in %o1 line, it is not very readable... I pasted a display2d enabled output, it should be read as (%o1) [a > 0, %pi/2 > a]  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2477795&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091007 22:10:55

Bugs item #2184396, was opened at 20081021 15:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2184396&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: Satoshi Adachi (satoshi_adachi) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Wrong factorization of sqrt() Initial Comment: Dear Developers of Maxima, I found a wrong behavihor of sqrt(). It is a principle that sqrt(X*Y) should not be factorized to sqrt(X)*sqrt(Y) unless X and Y can be judged to be nonnegative. I found a case in which this principle is broken. Here is a program for demonstration:  /* * wrong_factorization_of_sqrt.maxima: * * S.Adachi 2008/10/01 */ display2d:false; /* real for 1 <= x <= 2 */ correct:sqrt((11/x)*(2/x1)); /* real for 2sqrt(2) <= x <= 2+sqrt(2) */ INCORRECT:sqrt((1(2sqrt(2))/x)*((2+sqrt(2))/x1)); INCORRECT_AT_2:at(INCORRECT,[x=2]); SHOULD_BE_POSITIVE:float(INCORRECT_AT_2); /* END */  The result of execution is as follows:  Maxima 5.14.0cvs http://maxima.sourceforge.net Using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.7 (aka GCL) Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) batch(wrong_factorization_of_sqrt.maxima) batching #p/Volumes/HFS+2/home/adachi/work/307/wrong_factorization_of_sqrt.maxima (%i2) display2d : false (%o2) false (%i3) correct:sqrt((11/x)*(2/x1)) (%o3) sqrt((11/x)*(2/x1)) (%i4) INCORRECT:sqrt((1(2sqrt(2))/x)*((sqrt(2)+2)/x1)) (%o4) sqrt((2sqrt(2))/x1)*sqrt(1(sqrt(2)+2)/x) (%i5) INCORRECT_AT_2:at(INCORRECT,[x = 2]) (%o5) sqrt((2sqrt(2))/21)*sqrt(1(sqrt(2)+2)/2) (%i6) SHOULD_BE_POSITIVE:float(INCORRECT_AT_2) (%o6) 0.70710678118655 (%o7) "wrong_factorization_of_sqrt.maxima"  At first, as is seen from (%i2) and (%o2), sqrt(11/x)*(2/x1)) is not factorized to sqrt(...)*sqrt(...) in any automatic way. This is the correct behavihor. Next, as is seen from (%i3) and (%o3), sqrt(1(2sqrt(2))/x)*((2+sqrt(2))/x1)) is factorized to sqrt((2sqrt(2))/x1)*sqrt(1(sqrt(2)+2)/x) in an automatic way. THIS IS AN INCORRECT BEHAVIOR. This expression is nonnegative for 2sqrt(2) <= x <= 2+sqrt(2). However, as is demonstrated by (%i4)(%o5), the calculated expression takes a negative value at x=2. Please stop the incorrect factorization of sqrt(X*Y) to sqrt(X)*sqrt(Y). Sincerely yours, Satoshi Adachi  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091008 00:10 Message: Maxima can simplify the sqrt function correctly. No simplification, when the sign of a is not known: (%i1) sqrt(a*z); (%o1) sqrt(a*z) Simplification for a a positive or b a negative value: (%i2) assume(a>0)$ (%i3) sqrt(a*z); (%o3) sqrt(a)*sqrt(z) (%i4) assume(b<0)$ (%i5) sqrt(b*z); (%o5) sqrt(b)*sqrt(z) The problem of this bug report is one of the factors of the example. The sign is wrongly determined to be negative: (%i8) sign(1(2sqrt(2))/x); (%o8) neg Therefore Maxima does the above simplification, which is wrong. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: boud (boud1) Date: 20090219 03:31 Message: There's another bug related to this one IMHO: [ 2202764 ] Taylor series of sqrt(1+xy) http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2202764&group_id=4933&atid=104933 [This is why i came here  i had a Taylor series bug that i think is equivalent.] HACK SOLUTION: The bug is solved for me (maxima 5.10.0, debianetch) by setting radexpand : false; ANALYSIS: However, i'm not convinced that this is a sufficient response to the bug. i don't really know maxima well enough to know what would be most reasonable. (1) Set radexpand to false by default? And add more warnings in the documentation (or do we expect users to learn mathematics elsewhere than in software documentation?) (2) Tell maxima not to rewrite sqrt(X) as %i sqrt(X) when domain:real ? (3) Extend the "is X positive, negative or zero?" question to the cases where it still needs to be asked but so far does not get asked, i.e. when deciding whether sqrt(X*Y) = sqrt(X)*sqrt(Y) or sqrt(X*Y) =  sqrt(X)*sqrt(Y) ? (4) Decide not to invert the order of an expression inside sqrt( ... ) if domain:real, except when it's sure that the expression is positive?  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2184396&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091006 22:39:10

Bugs item #1715410, was opened at 20070509 05:56 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1715410&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: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: assume_pos : true is dangerous Initial Comment: This is wrong: (%i1) limit(abs(sin(x)/x),x,0), assume_pos : true; (%o1) und This is OK: (no asksign) (%i2) limit(abs(sin(x)/x),x,0); (%o2) 1 Maybe only asksign should look at assume_pos?  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091007 00:39 Message: The bug has gone. Both example give the same result in Maxima 5.19post: (%i12) limit(abs(sin(x)/x),x,0), assume_pos : true; (%o12) 1 (%i13) limit(abs(sin(x)/x),x,0); (%o13) 1 Closing as works for me. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1715410&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091006 22:07:09

Bugs item #769884, was opened at 20030711 23:27 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=769884&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: Works For Me Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inconsistency in Assume Initial Comment: Simple assume works: (C1) assume(a>b); (D1) [ a > b] Assume of negations works: (C2) assume(not c>d); (D2) [d >= C] Assume of 'and' works: (C3) assume(e>=f and e<=f); (D3) [e >= f, f >= e] But assume of 'and' with negation doesn't: (C4) assume(g>=h and not(g>h)); MACSYMA was unable to evaluate the predicate: g >= h  an error. Quitting. To debug this try DEBUGMODE  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091007 00:07 Message: As reported in the last posting the error has gone. This is the result with Maxima 5.19post: (%i2) assume(g>=h and not(g>h)); (%o2) [g >= h,h >= g] Closing this bug report as "works for me". Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: mikolg (mikolg) Date: 20071103 04:49 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1902378 Originator: NO Maxima version: 5.13.0cvs Maxima build date: 17:3 11/2/2007 host type: i686redhatlinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.7 (%i1) assume(a>b); (%o1) [a > b] (%i2) assume(not c>d); (%o2) [d >= c] (%i3) assume(e>=f and e<=f); (%o3) [e >= f, f >= e] (%i4) assume(g>=h and not(g>h)); (%o4) [g >= h, h >= g] Looks like it's fixed already.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=769884&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091006 00:10:54

Bugs item #2872738, was opened at 20091005 03:24 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872738&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: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: sign((1/n)*(1)^n); Initial Comment: (%i1) sign((1/n)*(1)^n); > heap overflow seems to be interaction between splitprod and changes to timesin in simp.lisp rev 1.80.  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091006 02:10 Message: Fixed in simp.lisp revision 1.91. (1)^n*(1) simplifies again to (1)^n and not (1)^(n+1). The example of this bug report gives: (%i4) sign((1/n)*(1)^n); (%o4) pn Closing this bug report. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091005 11:59 Message: It is a silly error of mine. You can see it easily: (%i5) (1)^n; (%o5) (1)^n (%i6) %*(1); (%o6) (1)^(n+1) (%i7) %*(1); (%o7) (1)^(n+2) (%i8) %*(1); (%o8) (1)^(n+3) ... In timesin the sign is not switched, but the factor (1) is added to the exponent. That is correct for all integers, but not for the number 1. I will correct it as fast as possible. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872738&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091005 18:36:52

Bugs item #2873057, was opened at 20091005 19:36 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by l_butler You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2873057&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Documentation Group: Includes proposed fix Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Leo Butler (l_butler) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: version incorrectly reported Initial Comment: The version of Maxima is incorrectly reported on the front page of the manual.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2873057&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091005 09:59:01

Bugs item #2872738, was opened at 20091005 03:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872738&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: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: sign((1/n)*(1)^n); Initial Comment: (%i1) sign((1/n)*(1)^n); > heap overflow seems to be interaction between splitprod and changes to timesin in simp.lisp rev 1.80.  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091005 11:59 Message: It is a silly error of mine. You can see it easily: (%i5) (1)^n; (%o5) (1)^n (%i6) %*(1); (%o6) (1)^(n+1) (%i7) %*(1); (%o7) (1)^(n+2) (%i8) %*(1); (%o8) (1)^(n+3) ... In timesin the sign is not switched, but the factor (1) is added to the exponent. That is correct for all integers, but not for the number 1. I will correct it as fast as possible. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872738&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091005 01:24:59

Bugs item #2872738, was opened at 20091004 21:24 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872738&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: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: sign((1/n)*(1)^n); Initial Comment: (%i1) sign((1/n)*(1)^n); > heap overflow seems to be interaction between splitprod and changes to timesin in simp.lisp rev 1.80.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872738&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091004 22:40:24

Bugs item #2872605, was opened at 20091004 11:03 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872605&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: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Barton Willis (willisbl) Summary: abs_integrate bug Initial Comment: (%i21) load("abs_integrate")$ (%i22) integrate(max(x^5x^3,x*(x^4qy)*(1x^2)),x); (%o22) 6*false+(x^4*y)/8(x^2*y)/4x^8/16+x^6/6+(q*x^4)/8x^4/8(q*x^2)/4 Richard Hennessy reported this bug to me. I'm testing a fix for this bug.  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20091004 17:40 Message: fixed by abs_integrate.mac CVS revision 1.17; appended regression test.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872605&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091004 20:52:59

Bugs item #2811926, was opened at 20090625 05:01 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by crategus 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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 6 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: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091004 22:52 Message: With revision 1.56 of compar.lisp %i has the following properties: (%i12) featurep(%i,imaginary); (%o12) true (%i13) featurep(%i,complex); (%o13) true (%i14) featurep(%i,noninteger); (%o14) true The integral of this bug report no longer ask a question about %i. We get: (%i15) integrate(exp(x^%i),x,0,1); (%o15) %i*(%i*('limit(%i*gamma_incomplete(%i,log(x+1))/2 %i*gamma_incomplete(%i,log(x+1))/2,x,0,minus) +%i*gamma_incomplete(%i,1)/2%i*gamma_incomplete(%i,1)/2) +'limit(gamma_incomplete(%i,log(x+1))/2 gamma_incomplete(%i,log(x+1))/2,x,0,minus) +gamma_incomplete(%i,1)/2+gamma_incomplete(%i,1)/2) The above integral can not be evaluated completely because the limit of gamma_incomplete(%i,x) as x>0 is not known. The indefinite integral is correct: (%i16) integrate(exp(x^%i),x); (%o16) %i*gamma_incomplete(%i,x^%i)*x*(x^%i)^%i Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20090625 06:32 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...>  20091004 19:15:02

Bugs item #2811926, was opened at 20090624 23:01 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by dgildea 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: 6 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: 20090625 00:32 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...>  20091004 19:07:49

Bugs item #2870018, was opened at 20090929 15:01 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2870018&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: Duplicate Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: %i should never be an integer, even in integration Initial Comment: integrate(exp(x^%i),x,0,1); yields a question about whether %i is an integer. But integer(%i) => false.  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20091004 15:07 Message: Duplicate of bug 2811926.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2870018&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091004 19:06:05

Bugs item #2869955, was opened at 20090929 13:35 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by dgildea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2869955&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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit incorrect for x/sqrt(1x^2) Initial Comment: Maxima 5.19.1 <snip> (%i1) limit(x/sqrt(1x^2),x,1,minus); (%o1) infinity (%i2) domain(x); (%o2) real(x) The answer should be minf.  >Comment By: Dan Gildea (dgildea) Date: 20091004 15:06 Message: Fixed in limit.lisp rev 1.84.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2869955&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091004 19:01:42

Bugs item #2821277, was opened at 20090714 13:21 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2821277&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: inverse_jacobi_sn(x,0) Initial Comment: inverse_jacobi_sn(x,0) simplifies to (($ASIN SIMP) $X) , but I think it should be ((%ASIN SIMP) $X) . One problem this causes is: (%i109) inverse_jacobi_sn(x,0); (%o109) asin(x) (%i110) diff(%,x); (%o110) 'diff(asin(x),x,1) (%i111) ev(%,diff); (%o111) 1/sqrt(1x^2)  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091004 21:01 Message: Fixed in ellipt.lisp revision 1.70. Closing this bug report. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20090715 16:12 Message: I will fix the trig problem soon, and close this report. I think a new bug report should be filed for the $elliptic_e/f/pi issue.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090714 20:26 Message: Further comment: The functions elliptic_e and elliptic_f are implemented as simplifying functions with the symbol $elliptic_e and $elliptic_f. The nounform of this symbols is not known to Maxima and there is no alias and reversealias on the property list. In this case the simplified expression has to contain the $name too. By the way: We can produce some inconsistencies when implementing a function this way. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20090714 20:18 Message: Yes, I think $asin has to be changed to %asin. Remark: For all simlifying functions with an alias and reversealias on the property list only the noun form "%function " can be used in simplified Maxima expressions. This is the case for most elementary functions like the trig funtions. There are some exceptions like the beta function. I think this is inconsistent. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20090714 19:43 Message: Probably caused by confusion of noun/verb. The offending code is line 1094: ((zerop1 m) ;; asn(x,0) = F(asin(x),0) = asin(x) (take '($asin) u)) Should that be %asin? There are other places where this happens.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2821277&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091004 16:37:45

Bugs item #2872505, was opened at 20091004 13:02 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872505&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: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Assume database inconsistent after reset() Initial Comment: The command resest() causes problems with the assume database. We assume two facts: (%i2) assume(x>0,l>x); (%o2) [x > 0,l > x] (%i3) is(x>0); (%o3) true (%i4) is(l>0); (%o4) true We do a reset (%i5) reset(); (%o1) [rhs, lhs, *nobjects*, current, context, lispdisp, display2d, trunique, linenum, %, labels, mopl, __, _, features] The facts are still present in the database: (%i2) facts(); (%o2) [x > 0, l > x] But it does no longer work: (%i3) is(x>0); (%o3) unknown (%i4) is(l>0); (%o4) unknown But the information is not completely lost: (%i5) is(l>x); (%o5) true Dieter Kaiser  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091004 18:37 Message: All defmvar declarations for global variables of the assume databse in db.lisp and compar.lisp have been replaced by defvar declarations. These variables are no longer restored by reset(). Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872505&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091004 16:03:33

Bugs item #2872605, was opened at 20091004 11:03 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872605&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: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Barton Willis (willisbl) Summary: abs_integrate bug Initial Comment: (%i21) load("abs_integrate")$ (%i22) integrate(max(x^5x^3,x*(x^4qy)*(1x^2)),x); (%o22) 6*false+(x^4*y)/8(x^2*y)/4x^8/16+x^6/6+(q*x^4)/8x^4/8(q*x^2)/4 Richard Hennessy reported this bug to me. I'm testing a fix for this bug.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872605&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091004 12:58:02

Bugs item #2872553, was opened at 20091004 14:58 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872553&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: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Assume database inconsistent after integration Initial Comment: This is an integral from rtestint.mac. All works as expected: (%i2) assume(x>0,l>x); (%o2) [x > 0,l > x] (%i3) integrate(integrate((acos(x/l)+acos(y/l)%pi/2)/(2*%pi),y,0,sqrt(l^2x^2)),x,0,l); (%o3) l^2/(4*%pi) After the integration the inferences are no longer known to Maxima: (%i4) is(x>0); (%o4) unknown (%i5) is(l>0); (%o5) unknown (%i6) is(l>x); (%o6) unknown But the facts are still present: (%i7) facts(); (%o7) [x > 0,l > x] Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872553&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091004 11:03:00

Bugs item #2872505, was opened at 20091004 13:02 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872505&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: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Assume database inconsistent after reset() Initial Comment: The command resest() causes problems with the assume database. We assume two facts: (%i2) assume(x>0,l>x); (%o2) [x > 0,l > x] (%i3) is(x>0); (%o3) true (%i4) is(l>0); (%o4) true We do a reset (%i5) reset(); (%o1) [rhs, lhs, *nobjects*, current, context, lispdisp, display2d, trunique, linenum, %, labels, mopl, __, _, features] The facts are still present in the database: (%i2) facts(); (%o2) [x > 0, l > x] But it does no longer work: (%i3) is(x>0); (%o3) unknown (%i4) is(l>0); (%o4) unknown But the information is not completely lost: (%i5) is(l>x); (%o5) true Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2872505&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20091002 03:01:27

Bugs item #2871658, was opened at 20091001 23:01 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by dsimcha You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2871658&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: dsimcha (dsimcha) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: expr, simp=false; : simp=false has no effect. Initial Comment: (%i1) x/x, simp:false; (%o1) 1 (%i2) simp : false; (%o2) false (%i3) x/x; (%o3) x/x (%i4) x/x, simp : true; (%o4) 1 (%i5) x/x; (%o5) x/x  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2871658&group_id=4933 