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}
(28) 
_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 






1
(2) 
2
(7) 
3

4
(4) 
5

6

7
(5) 
8

9

10
(2) 
11
(1) 
12

13

14
(1) 
15
(2) 
16
(8) 
17
(8) 
18
(2) 
19
(7) 
20
(3) 
21
(1) 
22
(2) 
23
(9) 
24
(10) 
25
(4) 
26
(3) 
27

28
(7) 
29
(2) 
30
(4) 
31
(13) 






From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100128 15:25:05

Bugs item #2938078, was opened at 20100123 19:31 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Jason Ansel (jansel0) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Crash on attached input Initial Comment: Attached input file generates problems for some newer version of maxima in ubuntu/debian. The input is generated by my program. 5.13.03.1+b1 (from debian lenny/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11 (from debian squeeze/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11ubuntu1 (from ubuntu karmic/amd64) Seg Fault, no error reported $ maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null zsh: segmentation fault maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null 5.20.13 (from debian sid/amd64) Abort(), following error reported: $ maxima < maxima.input  tail (%i26) (%o26) [_r1_x >= 0] (%i27) (%o27) [n >= _r1_x] (%i28) (%o28) [equal(i, _r1_x)] (%i29) (%o29) true (%i30) (%o30) true (%i31) Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Unrecoverable error: value stack overflow. zsh: abort maxima < maxima.input  zsh: done tail  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100128 16:25 Message: Fixed in compar.lisp revision 1.65. Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Jason Ansel (jansel0) Date: 20100124 05:24 Message: Thank you for the quick reply Dieter Kaiser. [QUOTE] The input file has 1093 lines. I do not know what the file is supposed to do. A lot of lines are redundant. [/QUOTE] In isolation, the file may look a bit silly and redundant. It is a log of communication between my compiler and maxima. The outputs are parsed and used to understand and manipulate affine coordinates during program compilation. Currently we need to ask our users/developers to downgrade maxima in order to get our compiler working. If curios, more info on can be found here: (We haven't released code yet, but hope to soon) http://projects.csail.mit.edu/petabricks/ Thanks again, Jason  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100124 02:41 Message: I have found the bug and I have introduced it with the extension to look at integer facts into the database. The routines maximaintegerp and checkintegerfacts call each other. I have not build in code to avoid an endless recursion for the situation that two symbols are assumed to be equal, but have no further properties. I will correct it as soon as possible. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100124 02:13 Message: The input file has 1093 lines. I do not know what the file is supposed to do. A lot of lines are redundant. Nevertheless, I have worked out a simple example which shows a Maxima problem and is part of the example file: (%i1) assume(equal(x,i)); (%o1) [equal(x, i)] (%i2) diff(x+1,x); INFO: Control stack guard page reprotected Observed with Maxima 5.20post and SBCL 1.0.29. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100126 23:56:00

Bugs item #2940133, was opened at 20100126 11:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2940133&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(log(x),x,0) Initial Comment: Maxima report the wrong answer for the title's limit, it reports: infinity (not inf) (also instead of the symbol) and even if i try log(x) > 0 it reports infinity...  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20100126 23:55 Message: obviusly i tryed the right limit, it worked (inf) but even from left is inf (even if it's not a funcion limit...) should it not to say: "error" instead of "infinity"? it could be misunderstanding...  Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100126 19:09 Message: Perhaps you wanted limit(log(x),x,0,'plus) > minf. "infinity" is the complex infinity. Marking as pending/invalid.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2940133&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100126 19:09:44

Bugs item #2940133, was opened at 20100126 06:05 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2940133&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(log(x),x,0) Initial Comment: Maxima report the wrong answer for the title's limit, it reports: infinity (not inf) (also instead of the symbol) and even if i try log(x) > 0 it reports infinity...  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100126 14:09 Message: Perhaps you wanted limit(log(x),x,0,'plus) > minf. "infinity" is the complex infinity. Marking as pending/invalid.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2940133&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100126 11:05:23

Bugs item #2940133, was opened at 20100126 11:05 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2940133&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit(log(x),x,0) Initial Comment: Maxima report the wrong answer for the title's limit, it reports: infinity (not inf) (also instead of the symbol) and even if i try log(x) > 0 it reports infinity...  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2940133&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100125 23:28:44

Bugs item #1667350, was opened at 20070223 19:11 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1667350&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Lisp Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: cf(sqrt(8)) wrong Initial Comment: makelist(cf(sqrt(8)),cflength,1,7) => [3, [2, 1, 4], [2, 1, 5], [2, 1, 4, 1, 4], [2, 1, 4, 1, 5], [2, 1, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4], [2, 1, 4, 1, 4, 1, 5]] There are two problems here. * The cflength=0 result is not a continued fraction at all, but cf(xxx) is always supposed to return a continued fraction, even for integers: cf(3) => [3]. * cflength=n is documented to mean that you get n periods. The period here is [1,4] (length 2), so the results should be [2,1,4], [2,1,4,1,4], [2,1,4,1,4,1,4] etc. compare makelist(cf(sqrt(3)),cflength,1,7); => [[1, 1, 2], [1, 1, 2, 1, 2], [1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2], ... Same problem with cf(sqrt(32)), cf(sqrt(27)), etc. On the other hand, cf(2^(3/2)) etc. does NOT cause this problem. By the way, cflength gives you 1 period, not 0....  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20100125 23:28 Message: not just sqrt(8), there are many others... I've run this expression but I cannot see a clear pattern: for i:2 thru 10000 do if not listp(cf(sqrt(i))) then display(i, cf(sqrt(i)));  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=1667350&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100125 10:45:23

Bugs item #2933063, was opened at 20100115 20:57 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by emu_48 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2933063&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  Solving equations Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: simple equations with sqrt(x^2....) cannot be solved Initial Comment: wxmaxima version 0.8.4, naxima 5.20.1 for Windows Xp (sp3) or 2000 (sp4) simple equations or quadratic or biquadratic with unknown x in sqrt(..) cannot be solved. example 1: sqrt(x^2+a^2)=x+2 example 2: sqrt(x^2+a^2)=3*x example 3: sqrt(x^2+(a/2)^2)=x+sqrt(x^2+a^2)  Comment By: Helmut Albrecht (emu_48) Date: 20100125 11:45 Message: .. may be the "same problem": Maxima can calculate four points of intersection of two conic sections: (%i2) ellipse:1/49*x^2+1/9*y^24/49*x10/9*y+820/441=0; (%o2) y^2/9(10*y)/9+x^2/49(4*x)/49+820/441=0 (%i5) hyperbel:1/4*x^21/16*y^21=0; (%o5) y^2/16+x^2/41=0 (%i12) solve([ellipse,hyperbel], [x,y]); (%o12) [[x=2.236450839328537,y=2.001711962336829],[x=2.404118404118404,y=2.668172043010753],[x=3.872701555869873,y=6.632591093117409],[x=4.391588785046729,y=7.819475655430711]] but it can't calculate the two points of intersection of two circles with solve() (%i4) circle1:(x4)^2+(y5)^24^2=0; (%o4) (y5)^2+(x4)^216=0 (%i6) circle2:(x1)^2+(y2)^24^2=0; (%o6) (y2)^2+(x1)^216=0 (%i26) solve([circle1,circle2], [x,y]); (%o26) [ ] might be an interesting problem ;) helmut  Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 20100116 15:30 Message: 1. (%i1) eq1:sqrt(x^2+a^2)=x+2; (%o1) sqrt(x^2+a^2)=x+2 (%i2) %^2; (%o2) x^2+a^2=(x+2)^2 (%i3) solve(%,x); (%o3) [x=(a^24)/4] (%i4) ans1:%[1]; (%o4) x=(a^24)/4 2. assume a>0 (%i5) eq2:sqrt(x^2+a^2)=3*x; (%o5) sqrt(x^2+a^2)=3*x (%i6) %^2; (%o6) x^2+a^2=9*x^2 (%i7) solve(%,x); (%o7) [x=a/2^(3/2),x=a/2^(3/2)] (%i8) ans2:%[2]; (%o8) x=a/2^(3/2) (%i9) float(%), numer; (%o9) x=0.35355339059327*a 3. assume a>0 (%i10) eq3:sqrt(x^2+(a/2)^2)=x+sqrt(x^2+a^2); (%o10) sqrt(x^2+a^2/4)=sqrt(x^2+a^2)+x (%i11) wxplot2d([lhs(eq3),rhs(eq3)], [x,5,5]),a=1$ (%t11) << Graphics >> (%i12) eq3^2,expand; (%o12) x^2+a^2/4=2*x*sqrt(x^2+a^2)+2*x^2+a^2 (%i13) %(2*x^2+a^2); (%o13) x^2(3*a^2)/4=2*x*sqrt(x^2+a^2) (%i14) %^2,expand; (%o14) x^4+(3*a^2*x^2)/2+(9*a^4)/16=4*x^4+4*a^2*x^2 (%i15) solve(%,x); (%o15) [x=(sqrt(2*sqrt(13)5)*a)/(2*sqrt(3)),x=(sqrt(2*sqrt(13)5)*a)/(2*sqrt(3)),x=(sqrt(2*sqrt(13)+5)*%i*a)/(2*sqrt(3)),x=(sqrt(2*sqrt(13)+5)*%i*a)/(2*sqrt(3))] (%i16) ans3:%[1]; (%o16) x=(sqrt(2*sqrt(13)5)*a)/(2*sqrt(3)) (%i17) float(%), numer; (%o17) x=0.4292534751294*a  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20100116 14:51 Message: Workaround: (%i2) load(to_poly_solver)$ (%i3) %solve(sqrt(x^2+a^2)=x+2,x); (%o3) %union([x=(a^24)/4])  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2933063&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100125 05:14:59

Bugs item #2937837, was opened at 20100123 03:44 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937837&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: Dirk Bosmans (dbinf) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: find_root_error documentation incorrect Initial Comment: The documentation (5.19.2) states : "find_root expects the function in question to have a different sign at the endpoints of the search interval. If this condition is not met, the behavior of find_root is governed by find_root_error. When find_root_error is true, find_root prints an error message. Otherwise find_root returns the value of find_root_error." That last part should be something like this: "... When find_root_error is true, find_root prints an error message. Otherwise, if numberp(find_root_error) is true, find_root returns the value of find_root_error. Otherwise, find_root returns the partiallyevaluated find_root expression find_root(first_argument, false, false)" This behaviour is what is programmed in the last few lines of share/maxima/15.9.2/src/intpol.lsp, and is indeed what happens if calling find_root with for example find_root_error = false or with find_root_error:disp("Houston, we have a problem".  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20100124 22:14 Message: Thanks for pointing out this problem. I've resolved it by adjusting the find_root_error documentation and the code so they agree now. Resolved by r1.30 doc/info/Numerical.texi and r1.16 src/intpol.lisp. Closing this report as fixed.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937837&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100125 05:08:29

Bugs item #2934064, was opened at 20100117 19:38 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2934064&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: problem loading ezunits Initial Comment: Maxima version: 5.20.1 Maxima build date: 21:25 12/14/2009 Host type: i686pcmingw32 Lisp implementation type: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) Lisp implementation version: GCL 2.6.8 Loading ezunits results in an error when unitp is compiled, since unitp depends on unitop_p which is not compiled: ; (DEFUN $UNITP ...) is being compiled. ;; The variable $UNITOP_P is undefined. ;; The compiler will assume this variable is a global. The solution is to modify ezunits.mac, to replace the line: compile (constantp_not0, constantp_not1, mult_expr_nontrivialconstfactorsp, nondimensional, unitp, nonconstantp); with the line: compile (constantp_not0, constantp_not1, mult_expr_nontrivialconstfactorsp, nondimensional, unitop_p, unitp, nonconstantp);  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20100124 22:08 Message: Problem was that incorrect code was generated for the unitop_p function call when unitp was compiled. Fixed by r1.15 src/fcall.lisp. Closing this report as fixed.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2934064&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 17:12:21

Bugs item #2938716, was opened at 20100124 18:09 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by hgeyer You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938716&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: ezunits: Problem with symbols evaluating to 0 Initial Comment: Consider the following session. %o5 is ok but %o6 is clearly wrong. Maxima 5.20post http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp CLISP 2.44.1 (20080223) 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) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) load("ezunits"); (%o2) "/usr/local/share/maxima/5.20post/share/contrib/ezunits/ezunits.mac" (%i3) a:aa`X; (%o3) aa ` X (%i4) b:0; (%o4) 0 (%i5) 1/(a+b); (%o5) 1/aa ` 1/X (%i6) 1/('a+'b); (%o6) 1/(b+a) ` 1/2 (%i7) ev(%); (%o7) (1/aa ` 1/X)/2 (%i8) ev(%); (%o8) 1/(2*aa) ` 1/X  >Comment By: Harald Geyer (hgeyer) Date: 20100124 18:12 Message: Sorry, forgot to log in. Sending an empty message to get updates on this tracker item...  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938716&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 17:09:28

Bugs item #2938716, was opened at 20100124 17:09 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938716&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: ezunits: Problem with symbols evaluating to 0 Initial Comment: Consider the following session. %o5 is ok but %o6 is clearly wrong. Maxima 5.20post http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp CLISP 2.44.1 (20080223) 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) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) load("ezunits"); (%o2) "/usr/local/share/maxima/5.20post/share/contrib/ezunits/ezunits.mac" (%i3) a:aa`X; (%o3) aa ` X (%i4) b:0; (%o4) 0 (%i5) 1/(a+b); (%o5) 1/aa ` 1/X (%i6) 1/('a+'b); (%o6) 1/(b+a) ` 1/2 (%i7) ev(%); (%o7) (1/aa ` 1/X)/2 (%i8) ev(%); (%o8) 1/(2*aa) ` 1/X  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938716&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 14:19:26

Bugs item #2937182, was opened at 20100122 16:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by kirzhanov You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Assume does not always affect ratsimp/fullratsimp result Initial Comment: First, assume that x>=0: assume(x>=0); facts(); // returns x>=0 is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns TRUE Now, forget about x>=0 and assume x<0: forget(x>=0); assume(x<0); facts(); // returns 0>x is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns FALSE Is the expected result here TRUE instead of FALSE? For me this result is unexpected. It was achieved using the SAGE 4.3 system which is shipped with Maxima 5.20. I'm not sure this bug is related to Maxima, but it seems so. The behavior of this Maxima 5.20 built into the SAGE system differs from behavior of Maxima 5.17.1 which was used by me previously. Because of such difference I receive not exactly incorrect, but slightly different results in the newer version of Maxima. Thus it seems to me that the results given by the latest version can be simplified at higher degree. Cheers, Dima  >Comment By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Date: 20100124 17:19 Message: Finally, I found out how to read the output of build_info() and bug_report() commands. Here it is: build_info() returns Maxima version: 5.19.1 Maxima build date: 19:14 1/15/2010 host type: i686pclinuxgnu lispimplementationtype: ECL lispimplementationversion: 9.10.2 Previously I could not read the output of the diagnostic tools because it for some reason was not printed by the notebook (HTMLbased) interface to SAGE. The output above and below was copied from the Sage's command line, and not from the notebook interface. Here is the output from run_testsuite(); command. It seems that I did not get a valid Maxima executable after my compilation. This may be the cause of an incompatible LISP implementation: Running tests in rtestnset: 519/519 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1: 106/106 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1a: 24/24 tests passed. Running tests in rtest2: 56/56 tests passed. Running tests in rtest4: 89/89 tests passed. Running tests in rtest5: 52/52 tests passed (not counting 1 expected errors). Running tests in rtest6: 4/4 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6a: 56/56 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6b: 16/16 tests passed. Running tests in rtest7: 44/44 tests passed. Running tests in rtest9: 83/83 tests passed (not counting 1 expected errors). Running tests in rtest9a: 22/22 tests passed. Running tests in rtest10: 46/46 tests passed (not counting 2 expected errors). Running tests in rtest11: 135/135 tests passed. Running tests in rtest13: 24/24 tests passed. Running tests in rtest13s: 17/17 tests passed. Running tests in rtest14: 352/352 tests passed (not counting 2 expected errors). Running tests in rtest15: 250/250 tests passed. Running tests in rtest16: ********************** Problem 173 *************** Input: 60 2  1 float()  1 60 2 Result:  1.110223024625157e16 This differed from the expected result: 0.0 ********************** Problem 174 *************** Input: 1000 2  1 float()  1 1000 2 Result:  1.110223024625157e16 This differed from the expected result: 0.0 229/231 tests passed. The following 2 problems failed: (173 174) Running tests in rtestode: 68/68 tests passed. Running tests in rtestode_zp: 30/30 tests passed. Running tests in rtest3: 131/131 tests passed. Running tests in rtest8: 132/132 tests passed. Running tests in rtest12: 78/78 tests passed (not counting 2 expected errors). Running tests in rexamples: 136/136 tests passed. Running tests in rtesthyp: 258/258 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_hypgeo: 248/248 tests passed (not counting 2 expected errors). Running tests in rtestmt19937: 15/15 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_allnummod: 501/501 tests passed (not counting 4 expected errors). Running tests in rtestconjugate: 133/133 tests passed. Running tests in rtestsum: 300/300 tests passed (not counting 4 expected errors). Running tests in rtest_trig: 136/136 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_zeta: 18/18 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_diff_invtrig: 22/22 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_scalarp: 20/20 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_everysome: 84/84 tests passed. Running tests in rtestint: 192/192 tests passed. Running tests in rtestifactor: 25/25 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_equal: 199/199 tests passed (not counting 2 expected errors). Running tests in rtest_abs: 70/70 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_taylor: 138/138 tests passed (not counting 12 expected errors). Running tests in rtest_dot: 55/55 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_mset: 59/59 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_boolean: 116/116 tests passed (not counting 2 expected errors). Running tests in rtest_round: 99/99 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_map: 99/99 tests passed (not counting 3 expected errors). Running tests in rtest_sign: 254/254 tests passed (not counting 11 expected errors). Running tests in rtest_algebraic: 45/45 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_gamma: 693/693 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_expintegral: 185/185 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_signum: 30/30 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_lambert_w: 34/34 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_elliptic: 74/74 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_integrate: 740/740 tests passed. Running tests in rtest_integrate_special: 50/50 tests passed. Error summary: Errors found in /home/damir/workspace/bin/sage/local/share/maxima/5.19.1/tests/rtest16.mac, problems: (173 174) real time : 588.362 secs run time : 526.572 secs gc count : 3743 times consed : 7162000420988 bytes (%o0) done By the way, none of the tests says that there is a problem with algebraic expression simplification like the discussed one. Will it be reasonable or useful to add this or similar case to any groups of tests?  Comment By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Date: 20100124 12:29 Message: Here are some commands to see how variable type and assumptions affect the resulting expression: assume(x<0); # returns [x<0] facts(); # returns [0>x] sqrt(x^2); # returns sqrt(x^2) declare(x,complex); # returns done facts(); # returns [0>x,kind(x,complex)] sqrt(x^2); # returns sqrt(x^2) remove(x,complex); # returns done declare(x,real); # returns done facts(); # returns [0>x,kind(x,real)] sqrt(x^2); # returns sqrt(x^2) forget(x<0); assume(x>=0) facts(); # [kind(x,real),x>=0] sqrt(x^2); # returns x To build my copy of Maxima I downloaded latest source package from this page: http://www.sagemath.org/downloadsource.html and compiled it using the supplied makefile (by issuing ./make). I could not use precompiled binaries since my CPU did not support some flag used compiled binaries from this page: http://www.sagemath.org/downloadlinux.html The compilation was carried out on Ubuntu Linux 9.10 with latest updates. Please tell me if there are any details (e.i. compilers and their versions) that I can mention here. I'm new to Maxima and absolutely new to LISP and thus I don't know what does matter and what does not. The following message is printed when I execute command !maxima in the sage command prompt: ;;; Loading #P"/home/damir/workspace/bin/sage/local/lib/ecl/defsystem.fas" ;;; Loading #P"/home/damir/workspace/bin/sage/local/lib/ecl/cmp.fas" ;;; Loading #P"/home/damir/workspace/bin/sage/local/lib/ecl/sysfun.lsp" Maxima 5.19.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net Using Lisp ECL 9.10.2 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. but as I mentioned before, neither build_info() nor bug_report() provide any output. A similar case (but not equivalent to the one discussed here) may be discussed here http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2095 (But it this ticket the Maxima behavior seems to be adequate.) http://groups.google.com/group/sagesupport/browse_thread/thread/9759a893a56b7148/6d5d0e31353d1ef6 I thought this might be Maxima problem. But since you cannot reproduce it, this might be the cause of compiler/version choice or interaction with Sage. I'm not yet approved to make posts at SAGE group on Google Groups membership [http://groups.google.com/group/sagesupport] but I have applied and I wish to post this case there for discussion soon. By the way, if I terminate Maxima command with dollar sign $, Maxima (and maybe also Sage) hangs.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 19:34 Message: Sorry, I have overseen that you already have given the information that you use Maxima with SAGE 4.3. I have never used used Maxima in this enviroment. Therefore, I do not know what is expected for commands like bug_report() or run_testsuite(). Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 17:23 Message: Thank you very much for your report. It is helpful to find problems in Maxima. First, I had a look at the implementation of the simplification of sqrt(x^2) in Maxima 5.14, 5, 15, ... 5,20post. All versions simplifies sqrt(x^2) > x if x<0, Second, in all versions sqrt(x^2) is not simplified to x if the symbol is declared to be complex in addition. That is the declaration declare(x,complex). This might be a contradiction to the assumption that x is a negative real, but Maxima does not signal a problem. Please, can you have a look if your symbol is declared to be complex. You can use the command facts() to see it. (%i2) declare(x,complex); (%o2) done (%i3) facts(); (%o3) [kind(x, complex)] Furthermore, I do not understand why you do not get information from the commands build_info() and bug_report() and no results from the testsuite. You should get something like the following: (%i1) run_testsuite(); Running tests in rtestnset: 535/535 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1: 106/106 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1a: 24/24 tests passed. Running tests in rtest2: 56/56 tests passed. Running tests in rtest4: 89/89 tests passed. Running tests in rtest5: 51/51 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6: 4/4 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6a: 52/52 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6b: 16/16 tests passed. Running tests in rtest7: 44/44 tests passed. ... Perhaps, there is specific problem with your installation of Maxima. From which place do you have got your Maxima package? What Maxima interface your are using? Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Date: 20100123 16:07 Message: On my compilation command sequence assume(x<0); sqrt(x^2); gives output sqrt(x^2), and *not* x. Command ratsimp also does not affect this expression. Version information: Maxima 5.19.1, Using Lisp ECL 9.10.2. I could not get any output from function bug_report() or build_info(). Command run_testsuite() retuns 'done'.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100122 21:55 Message: For a negative symbol x Maxima simplifies the sqrt function the following way: (%i1) assume(x<0)$ (%i2) sqrt(x^2); (%o2) x The function fullratsimp is not needed and does not change anything for this example. We always get for this example: (%i3) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o3) true The only way I have found to get the reported oberservation is to give the variable x a positive value. (Maxima does not give an error if we assign a positive value to a symbol which is assumed to be negative). (%i6) x:10; (%o6) 10 Now the sqrt function simplifies to a positive value: (%i7) sqrt(x^2); (%o7) 10 We get false for the example from above: (%i9) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o9) false I think there is no real problem. Setting the status to pending and the resoltution to invalid. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 09:29:22

Bugs item #2937182, was opened at 20100122 16:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by kirzhanov You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Assume does not always affect ratsimp/fullratsimp result Initial Comment: First, assume that x>=0: assume(x>=0); facts(); // returns x>=0 is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns TRUE Now, forget about x>=0 and assume x<0: forget(x>=0); assume(x<0); facts(); // returns 0>x is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns FALSE Is the expected result here TRUE instead of FALSE? For me this result is unexpected. It was achieved using the SAGE 4.3 system which is shipped with Maxima 5.20. I'm not sure this bug is related to Maxima, but it seems so. The behavior of this Maxima 5.20 built into the SAGE system differs from behavior of Maxima 5.17.1 which was used by me previously. Because of such difference I receive not exactly incorrect, but slightly different results in the newer version of Maxima. Thus it seems to me that the results given by the latest version can be simplified at higher degree. Cheers, Dima  >Comment By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Date: 20100124 12:29 Message: Here are some commands to see how variable type and assumptions affect the resulting expression: assume(x<0); # returns [x<0] facts(); # returns [0>x] sqrt(x^2); # returns sqrt(x^2) declare(x,complex); # returns done facts(); # returns [0>x,kind(x,complex)] sqrt(x^2); # returns sqrt(x^2) remove(x,complex); # returns done declare(x,real); # returns done facts(); # returns [0>x,kind(x,real)] sqrt(x^2); # returns sqrt(x^2) forget(x<0); assume(x>=0) facts(); # [kind(x,real),x>=0] sqrt(x^2); # returns x To build my copy of Maxima I downloaded latest source package from this page: http://www.sagemath.org/downloadsource.html and compiled it using the supplied makefile (by issuing ./make). I could not use precompiled binaries since my CPU did not support some flag used compiled binaries from this page: http://www.sagemath.org/downloadlinux.html The compilation was carried out on Ubuntu Linux 9.10 with latest updates. Please tell me if there are any details (e.i. compilers and their versions) that I can mention here. I'm new to Maxima and absolutely new to LISP and thus I don't know what does matter and what does not. The following message is printed when I execute command !maxima in the sage command prompt: ;;; Loading #P"/home/damir/workspace/bin/sage/local/lib/ecl/defsystem.fas" ;;; Loading #P"/home/damir/workspace/bin/sage/local/lib/ecl/cmp.fas" ;;; Loading #P"/home/damir/workspace/bin/sage/local/lib/ecl/sysfun.lsp" Maxima 5.19.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net Using Lisp ECL 9.10.2 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. but as I mentioned before, neither build_info() nor bug_report() provide any output. A similar case (but not equivalent to the one discussed here) may be discussed here http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2095 (But it this ticket the Maxima behavior seems to be adequate.) http://groups.google.com/group/sagesupport/browse_thread/thread/9759a893a56b7148/6d5d0e31353d1ef6 I thought this might be Maxima problem. But since you cannot reproduce it, this might be the cause of compiler/version choice or interaction with Sage. I'm not yet approved to make posts at SAGE group on Google Groups membership [http://groups.google.com/group/sagesupport] but I have applied and I wish to post this case there for discussion soon. By the way, if I terminate Maxima command with dollar sign $, Maxima (and maybe also Sage) hangs.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 19:34 Message: Sorry, I have overseen that you already have given the information that you use Maxima with SAGE 4.3. I have never used used Maxima in this enviroment. Therefore, I do not know what is expected for commands like bug_report() or run_testsuite(). Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 17:23 Message: Thank you very much for your report. It is helpful to find problems in Maxima. First, I had a look at the implementation of the simplification of sqrt(x^2) in Maxima 5.14, 5, 15, ... 5,20post. All versions simplifies sqrt(x^2) > x if x<0, Second, in all versions sqrt(x^2) is not simplified to x if the symbol is declared to be complex in addition. That is the declaration declare(x,complex). This might be a contradiction to the assumption that x is a negative real, but Maxima does not signal a problem. Please, can you have a look if your symbol is declared to be complex. You can use the command facts() to see it. (%i2) declare(x,complex); (%o2) done (%i3) facts(); (%o3) [kind(x, complex)] Furthermore, I do not understand why you do not get information from the commands build_info() and bug_report() and no results from the testsuite. You should get something like the following: (%i1) run_testsuite(); Running tests in rtestnset: 535/535 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1: 106/106 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1a: 24/24 tests passed. Running tests in rtest2: 56/56 tests passed. Running tests in rtest4: 89/89 tests passed. Running tests in rtest5: 51/51 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6: 4/4 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6a: 52/52 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6b: 16/16 tests passed. Running tests in rtest7: 44/44 tests passed. ... Perhaps, there is specific problem with your installation of Maxima. From which place do you have got your Maxima package? What Maxima interface your are using? Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Date: 20100123 16:07 Message: On my compilation command sequence assume(x<0); sqrt(x^2); gives output sqrt(x^2), and *not* x. Command ratsimp also does not affect this expression. Version information: Maxima 5.19.1, Using Lisp ECL 9.10.2. I could not get any output from function bug_report() or build_info(). Command run_testsuite() retuns 'done'.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100122 21:55 Message: For a negative symbol x Maxima simplifies the sqrt function the following way: (%i1) assume(x<0)$ (%i2) sqrt(x^2); (%o2) x The function fullratsimp is not needed and does not change anything for this example. We always get for this example: (%i3) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o3) true The only way I have found to get the reported oberservation is to give the variable x a positive value. (Maxima does not give an error if we assign a positive value to a symbol which is assumed to be negative). (%i6) x:10; (%o6) 10 Now the sqrt function simplifies to a positive value: (%i7) sqrt(x^2); (%o7) 10 We get false for the example from above: (%i9) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o9) false I think there is no real problem. Setting the status to pending and the resoltution to invalid. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 06:46:31

Bugs item #2938379, was opened at 20100123 23:46 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=2938379&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(sqrt(1+r*sin(x)^2),x) => Lisp error Initial Comment: Maxima version: 5.20post Maxima build date: 20100117 17:54:07 Host type: i686pclinuxgnu Lisp implementation type: CLISP Lisp implementation version: 2.46 (20080702) (built 3427839018) (memory 3472764888) (%i1) integrate(sqrt(1+r*sin(x)^2),x); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: AREF: index 51 for #(#1=(NIL DATA NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ($INITIAL)) #2=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #1#))) #3=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #2#))) #4=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #3#))) #5=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #4#))) #6=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #5#))) #7=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #6#))) #8=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #7#))) #9=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #8#))) #10=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #9#))) #11=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #10#))) #12=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #11#))) #13=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #12#))) #14=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #13#))) #15=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #14#))) #16=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #15#))) #17=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #16#))) #18=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #17#))) #19=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #18#))) #20=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #19#))) #21=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #20#))) #22=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #21#))) #23=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #22#))) #24=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #23#))) #25=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #24#))) #26=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #25#))) #27=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #26#))) #28=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #27#))) #29=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #28#))) #30=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #29#))) #31=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #30#))) #32=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #31#))) #33=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #32#))) #34=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #33#))) #35=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #34#))) #36=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #35#))) #37=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #36#))) #38=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #37#))) #39=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #38#))) #40=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #39#))) #41=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #40#))) #42=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #41#))) #43=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #42#))) #44=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #43#))) #45=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #44#))) #46=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #45#))) #47=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #46#))) #48=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #47#))) #49=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #48#))) #50=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #49#))) (NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #50#)))) is out of range  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938379&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 06:02:38

Bugs item #2938358, was opened at 20100123 23:02 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=2938358&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(sqrt(1+r*sin(x)^2),x,a,b) => Lisp error Initial Comment: Maxima version: 5.20post Maxima build date: 20100117 17:54:07 Host type: i686pclinuxgnu Lisp implementation type: CLISP Lisp implementation version: 2.46 (20080702) (built 3427839018) (memory 3472764888) (%i1) integrate(sqrt(1+r*sin(x)^2),x,a,b); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: AREF: index 51 for #(#1=(NIL DATA (#2=((MGRP #:G16132 #3=(0 DATA (#2# #4=((MGRP #3# #5=(1.0E8 DATA (#6=((MGRP #5# #7=(1 DATA (#8=((MEQP #7# (1.0 DATA (#8#)))) #6#)))) #9=((MEQP #5# ((#10=(RAT SIMP) 1 100000000) DATA (#9#)))) #4#)))) #11=((MGRP #12=(1.0E8 DATA (#13=((MGRP #12# EPSILON) CON #1#) #14=((MEQP #12# ((#10# 1 100000000) DATA (#14#)))) #11# #15=((MGRP #16=(0.5772156649015329 DATA (#17=((MGRP #18=(1 DATA (#19=((MEQP #18# (1.0 DATA (#19#)))) #17# #20=((MGRP #21=(1.618033988749895 DATA (#20# #22=((MGRP #21# #16#)) ((MEQP $%PHI #21#) CON $GLOBAL) #23=((MGRP #24=(2.718281828459045 DATA (#23# #25=((MGRP #26=(3.141592653589793 DATA (#27=((MGRP (1.0E8 DATA (#27#)) #26#)) ((MEQP $%PI #26#) CON $GLOBAL) #25#)) #24#)) ((MEQP $%E #24#) CON $GLOBAL))) #21#)))) #18#)))) #16#)) #15# #28=((MGRP #16# #3#)) ((MEQP $%GAMMA #16#) CON $GLOBAL) #22#)) #12#)))) #3#)) #29=((MGRP EPSILON #3#) CON #1#) #30=((MGRP *Z* #3#) CON #1#) #28#))) CON #1#) #13# #29# #30#) CMARK 1 SUBC ($INITIAL)) #31=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #1#))) #32=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #31#))) #33=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #32#))) #34=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #33#))) #35=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #34#))) #36=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #35#))) #37=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #36#))) #38=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #37#))) #39=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #38#))) #40=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #39#))) #41=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #40#))) #42=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #41#))) #43=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #42#))) #44=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #43#))) #45=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #44#))) #46=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #45#))) #47=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #46#))) #48=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #47#))) #49=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #48#))) #50=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #49#))) #51=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #50#))) #52=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #51#))) #53=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #52#))) #54=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #53#))) #55=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #54#))) #56=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #55#))) #57=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #56#))) #58=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #57#))) #59=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #58#))) #60=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #59#))) #61=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #60#))) #62=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #61#))) #63=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #62#))) #64=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #63#))) #65=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #64#))) #66=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #65#))) #67=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #66#))) #68=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #67#))) #69=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #68#))) #70=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #69#))) #71=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #70#))) #72=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #71#))) #73=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #72#))) #74=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #73#))) #75=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #74#))) #76=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #75#))) #77=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #76#))) #78=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #77#))) #79=(NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #78#))) (NIL CMARK 1 SUBC ((*GC . #79#)))) is out of range  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938358&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 04:24:58

Bugs item #2938078, was opened at 20100123 13:31 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jansel0 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&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: Jason Ansel (jansel0) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Crash on attached input Initial Comment: Attached input file generates problems for some newer version of maxima in ubuntu/debian. The input is generated by my program. 5.13.03.1+b1 (from debian lenny/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11 (from debian squeeze/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11ubuntu1 (from ubuntu karmic/amd64) Seg Fault, no error reported $ maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null zsh: segmentation fault maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null 5.20.13 (from debian sid/amd64) Abort(), following error reported: $ maxima < maxima.input  tail (%i26) (%o26) [_r1_x >= 0] (%i27) (%o27) [n >= _r1_x] (%i28) (%o28) [equal(i, _r1_x)] (%i29) (%o29) true (%i30) (%o30) true (%i31) Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Unrecoverable error: value stack overflow. zsh: abort maxima < maxima.input  zsh: done tail  Comment By: Jason Ansel (jansel0) Date: 20100123 23:24 Message: Thank you for the quick reply Dieter Kaiser. [QUOTE] The input file has 1093 lines. I do not know what the file is supposed to do. A lot of lines are redundant. [/QUOTE] In isolation, the file may look a bit silly and redundant. It is a log of communication between my compiler and maxima. The outputs are parsed and used to understand and manipulate affine coordinates during program compilation. Currently we need to ask our users/developers to downgrade maxima in order to get our compiler working. If curios, more info on can be found here: (We haven't released code yet, but hope to soon) http://projects.csail.mit.edu/petabricks/ Thanks again, Jason  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 20:41 Message: I have found the bug and I have introduced it with the extension to look at integer facts into the database. The routines maximaintegerp and checkintegerfacts call each other. I have not build in code to avoid an endless recursion for the situation that two symbols are assumed to be equal, but have no further properties. I will correct it as soon as possible. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 20:13 Message: The input file has 1093 lines. I do not know what the file is supposed to do. A lot of lines are redundant. Nevertheless, I have worked out a simple example which shows a Maxima problem and is part of the example file: (%i1) assume(equal(x,i)); (%o1) [equal(x, i)] (%i2) diff(x+1,x); INFO: Control stack guard page reprotected Observed with Maxima 5.20post and SBCL 1.0.29. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 01:49:28

Bugs item #2938177, was opened at 20100123 22:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938177&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: Closed >Resolution: Duplicate Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: simplify_sum(sum(k^n,k,1,m)) > stack overflow Initial Comment: The following example causes a crash of Maxima: (%i1) load(simplify_sum)$ (%i2) sum(k^n,k,1,m); (%o2) 'sum(k^n,k,1,m) (%i3) simplify_sum(%); INFO: Control stack guard page unprotected Control stack guard page temporarily disabled: proceed with caution Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Observed with Maxima 5.20post and SBCL 1.0.29. Dieter Kaiser  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100124 02:49 Message: This is a duplicate of the reported problem Bug ID: 2938078  Crash on attached input. Again we get an endless loop between the functions maximaintegerp and checkintegerfacts. Closing this bug report as a duplicate. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938177&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 01:41:32

Bugs item #2938078, was opened at 20100123 19:31 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&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: Jason Ansel (jansel0) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Crash on attached input Initial Comment: Attached input file generates problems for some newer version of maxima in ubuntu/debian. The input is generated by my program. 5.13.03.1+b1 (from debian lenny/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11 (from debian squeeze/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11ubuntu1 (from ubuntu karmic/amd64) Seg Fault, no error reported $ maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null zsh: segmentation fault maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null 5.20.13 (from debian sid/amd64) Abort(), following error reported: $ maxima < maxima.input  tail (%i26) (%o26) [_r1_x >= 0] (%i27) (%o27) [n >= _r1_x] (%i28) (%o28) [equal(i, _r1_x)] (%i29) (%o29) true (%i30) (%o30) true (%i31) Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Unrecoverable error: value stack overflow. zsh: abort maxima < maxima.input  zsh: done tail  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100124 02:41 Message: I have found the bug and I have introduced it with the extension to look at integer facts into the database. The routines maximaintegerp and checkintegerfacts call each other. I have not build in code to avoid an endless recursion for the situation that two symbols are assumed to be equal, but have no further properties. I will correct it as soon as possible. Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100124 02:13 Message: The input file has 1093 lines. I do not know what the file is supposed to do. A lot of lines are redundant. Nevertheless, I have worked out a simple example which shows a Maxima problem and is part of the example file: (%i1) assume(equal(x,i)); (%o1) [equal(x, i)] (%i2) diff(x+1,x); INFO: Control stack guard page reprotected Observed with Maxima 5.20post and SBCL 1.0.29. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100124 01:13:05

Bugs item #2938078, was opened at 20100123 19:31 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&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: Jason Ansel (jansel0) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Crash on attached input Initial Comment: Attached input file generates problems for some newer version of maxima in ubuntu/debian. The input is generated by my program. 5.13.03.1+b1 (from debian lenny/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11 (from debian squeeze/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11ubuntu1 (from ubuntu karmic/amd64) Seg Fault, no error reported $ maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null zsh: segmentation fault maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null 5.20.13 (from debian sid/amd64) Abort(), following error reported: $ maxima < maxima.input  tail (%i26) (%o26) [_r1_x >= 0] (%i27) (%o27) [n >= _r1_x] (%i28) (%o28) [equal(i, _r1_x)] (%i29) (%o29) true (%i30) (%o30) true (%i31) Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Unrecoverable error: value stack overflow. zsh: abort maxima < maxima.input  zsh: done tail  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100124 02:13 Message: The input file has 1093 lines. I do not know what the file is supposed to do. A lot of lines are redundant. Nevertheless, I have worked out a simple example which shows a Maxima problem and is part of the example file: (%i1) assume(equal(x,i)); (%o1) [equal(x, i)] (%i2) diff(x+1,x); INFO: Control stack guard page reprotected Observed with Maxima 5.20post and SBCL 1.0.29. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100123 22:20:05

Bugs item #2028049, was opened at 20080725 19:29 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2028049&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: Pending Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Jerry R. Burch (jrb) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: trig constants incorrectly unequal Initial Comment: For complex constants pb, pa, and pc (see below for defs) I get: (%i9) is(equal(pb,pc+pa)) (%o9) true (%i10) is(equal(realpart(pb),realpart(pc+pa))) (%o10) false Here are the defs: (%i3) b:%pi/8 (%o3) %pi/8 (%i4) a:b%pi/4 (%o4) %pi/8 (%i5) c:%pi/4+b (%o5) 3*%pi/8 (%i6) pb:sqrt(2)*%e^(%i*b) (%o6) sqrt(2)*%e^(%i*%pi/8) (%i7) pa:%e^(%i*a) (%o7) %e^(%i*%pi/8) (%i8) pc:%e^(%i*c) (%o8) %e^(3*%i*%pi/8) Maxima version: 5.15.0 Maxima build date: 17:36 4/20/2008 host type: i686pcmingw32 lispimplementationtype: GNU Common Lisp (GCL) lispimplementationversion: GCL 2.6.8  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 23:20 Message: This problem can be reduced to the following two expressions: (%i1) a: sqrt(2)*%e^(%i*%pi/8)$ (%i2) b: %e^(3*%i*%pi/8)+%e^(%i*%pi/8)$ (%i3) is(equal(a,b)); (%o3) true (%i6) is(equal(realpart(a),realpart(b))); (%o6) false The problem is that Maxima does not recognise the equivalence of the two expressions: (%i9) realpart(a); (%o9) sqrt(2)*cos(%pi/8) (%i10) realpart(b); (%o10) cos(3*%pi/8)+cos(%pi/8) A workaround is to load spangl.mac. This file contains more general simplifications for expressions like cos(n*%pi/m). (%i44) load(spangl)$ Now cos(3*%pi/8) simplifies: (%i47) realpart(b); (%o47) sin(%pi/8)+cos(%pi/8) But it does not help completely: (%i45) is(equal((realpart(a)),realpart(b))); (%o45) false We need an extra expand to get the expected result. (%i46) is(equal(realpart(a),realpart(b))),expand; (%o46) true I think, we do not have a bug, but a missing feature. Maxima does not simplify the involved trigonometric expressions to a canonical form which can be easier tested to be equal. I suggest to close this bug report. Perhaps we should open a feature request. Setting the status to pending. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2028049&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100123 21:20:20

Bugs item #2938177, was opened at 20100123 22:20 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938177&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: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: simplify_sum(sum(k^n,k,1,m)) > stack overflow Initial Comment: The following example causes a crash of Maxima: (%i1) load(simplify_sum)$ (%i2) sum(k^n,k,1,m); (%o2) 'sum(k^n,k,1,m) (%i3) simplify_sum(%); INFO: Control stack guard page unprotected Control stack guard page temporarily disabled: proceed with caution Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Observed with Maxima 5.20post and SBCL 1.0.29. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938177&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100123 20:40:18

Bugs item #2933882, was opened at 20100117 18:11 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2933882&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: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Power function: 0^a not fully implemented Initial Comment: We assume a to be positive: (%i1) assume(a>0)$ This is correct: (%i2) 0^a; (%o2) 0 The exponent is negative. The result is not correct: (%i3) 0^a; (%o3) 0 The realpart of the exponent is positive. Therefore we should give zero as a result: (%i4) 0^(a+%i*y); 0 to a complex quantity has been generated.  an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true); (%i5) 0^(2+%i*10); 0 to a complex quantity has been generated.  an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true); Maxima simplifies all expressions which does not contain the symbol %i to zero. Furthermore, Maxima does not look at the sign of the realpart. Dieter Kaiser  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 21:40 Message: Fixed in revision 1.97 of simp.lisp. Closing this bug report as fixed. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2933882&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100123 18:31:02

Bugs item #2938078, was opened at 20100123 13:31 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by jansel0 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&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: Jason Ansel (jansel0) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Crash on attached input Initial Comment: Attached input file generates problems for some newer version of maxima in ubuntu/debian. The input is generated by my program. 5.13.03.1+b1 (from debian lenny/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11 (from debian squeeze/amd64) Works fine 5.17.11ubuntu1 (from ubuntu karmic/amd64) Seg Fault, no error reported $ maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null zsh: segmentation fault maxima < maxima.input > /dev/null 5.20.13 (from debian sid/amd64) Abort(), following error reported: $ maxima < maxima.input  tail (%i26) (%o26) [_r1_x >= 0] (%i27) (%o27) [n >= _r1_x] (%i28) (%o28) [equal(i, _r1_x)] (%i29) (%o29) true (%i30) (%o30) true (%i31) Maxima encountered a Lisp error: Unrecoverable error: value stack overflow. zsh: abort maxima < maxima.input  zsh: done tail  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2938078&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100123 16:34:34

Bugs item #2937182, was opened at 20100122 14:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Assume does not always affect ratsimp/fullratsimp result Initial Comment: First, assume that x>=0: assume(x>=0); facts(); // returns x>=0 is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns TRUE Now, forget about x>=0 and assume x<0: forget(x>=0); assume(x<0); facts(); // returns 0>x is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns FALSE Is the expected result here TRUE instead of FALSE? For me this result is unexpected. It was achieved using the SAGE 4.3 system which is shipped with Maxima 5.20. I'm not sure this bug is related to Maxima, but it seems so. The behavior of this Maxima 5.20 built into the SAGE system differs from behavior of Maxima 5.17.1 which was used by me previously. Because of such difference I receive not exactly incorrect, but slightly different results in the newer version of Maxima. Thus it seems to me that the results given by the latest version can be simplified at higher degree. Cheers, Dima  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 17:34 Message: Sorry, I have overseen that you already have given the information that you use Maxima with SAGE 4.3. I have never used used Maxima in this enviroment. Therefore, I do not know what is expected for commands like bug_report() or run_testsuite(). Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 15:23 Message: Thank you very much for your report. It is helpful to find problems in Maxima. First, I had a look at the implementation of the simplification of sqrt(x^2) in Maxima 5.14, 5, 15, ... 5,20post. All versions simplifies sqrt(x^2) > x if x<0, Second, in all versions sqrt(x^2) is not simplified to x if the symbol is declared to be complex in addition. That is the declaration declare(x,complex). This might be a contradiction to the assumption that x is a negative real, but Maxima does not signal a problem. Please, can you have a look if your symbol is declared to be complex. You can use the command facts() to see it. (%i2) declare(x,complex); (%o2) done (%i3) facts(); (%o3) [kind(x, complex)] Furthermore, I do not understand why you do not get information from the commands build_info() and bug_report() and no results from the testsuite. You should get something like the following: (%i1) run_testsuite(); Running tests in rtestnset: 535/535 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1: 106/106 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1a: 24/24 tests passed. Running tests in rtest2: 56/56 tests passed. Running tests in rtest4: 89/89 tests passed. Running tests in rtest5: 51/51 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6: 4/4 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6a: 52/52 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6b: 16/16 tests passed. Running tests in rtest7: 44/44 tests passed. ... Perhaps, there is specific problem with your installation of Maxima. From which place do you have got your Maxima package? What Maxima interface your are using? Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Date: 20100123 14:07 Message: On my compilation command sequence assume(x<0); sqrt(x^2); gives output sqrt(x^2), and *not* x. Command ratsimp also does not affect this expression. Version information: Maxima 5.19.1, Using Lisp ECL 9.10.2. I could not get any output from function bug_report() or build_info(). Command run_testsuite() retuns 'done'.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100122 19:55 Message: For a negative symbol x Maxima simplifies the sqrt function the following way: (%i1) assume(x<0)$ (%i2) sqrt(x^2); (%o2) x The function fullratsimp is not needed and does not change anything for this example. We always get for this example: (%i3) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o3) true The only way I have found to get the reported oberservation is to give the variable x a positive value. (Maxima does not give an error if we assign a positive value to a symbol which is assumed to be negative). (%i6) x:10; (%o6) 10 Now the sqrt function simplifies to a positive value: (%i7) sqrt(x^2); (%o7) 10 We get false for the example from above: (%i9) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o9) false I think there is no real problem. Setting the status to pending and the resoltution to invalid. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100123 14:23:14

Bugs item #2937182, was opened at 20100122 14:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crategus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Assume does not always affect ratsimp/fullratsimp result Initial Comment: First, assume that x>=0: assume(x>=0); facts(); // returns x>=0 is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns TRUE Now, forget about x>=0 and assume x<0: forget(x>=0); assume(x<0); facts(); // returns 0>x is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns FALSE Is the expected result here TRUE instead of FALSE? For me this result is unexpected. It was achieved using the SAGE 4.3 system which is shipped with Maxima 5.20. I'm not sure this bug is related to Maxima, but it seems so. The behavior of this Maxima 5.20 built into the SAGE system differs from behavior of Maxima 5.17.1 which was used by me previously. Because of such difference I receive not exactly incorrect, but slightly different results in the newer version of Maxima. Thus it seems to me that the results given by the latest version can be simplified at higher degree. Cheers, Dima  >Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100123 15:23 Message: Thank you very much for your report. It is helpful to find problems in Maxima. First, I had a look at the implementation of the simplification of sqrt(x^2) in Maxima 5.14, 5, 15, ... 5,20post. All versions simplifies sqrt(x^2) > x if x<0, Second, in all versions sqrt(x^2) is not simplified to x if the symbol is declared to be complex in addition. That is the declaration declare(x,complex). This might be a contradiction to the assumption that x is a negative real, but Maxima does not signal a problem. Please, can you have a look if your symbol is declared to be complex. You can use the command facts() to see it. (%i2) declare(x,complex); (%o2) done (%i3) facts(); (%o3) [kind(x, complex)] Furthermore, I do not understand why you do not get information from the commands build_info() and bug_report() and no results from the testsuite. You should get something like the following: (%i1) run_testsuite(); Running tests in rtestnset: 535/535 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1: 106/106 tests passed. Running tests in rtest1a: 24/24 tests passed. Running tests in rtest2: 56/56 tests passed. Running tests in rtest4: 89/89 tests passed. Running tests in rtest5: 51/51 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6: 4/4 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6a: 52/52 tests passed. Running tests in rtest6b: 16/16 tests passed. Running tests in rtest7: 44/44 tests passed. ... Perhaps, there is specific problem with your installation of Maxima. From which place do you have got your Maxima package? What Maxima interface your are using? Dieter Kaiser  Comment By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Date: 20100123 14:07 Message: On my compilation command sequence assume(x<0); sqrt(x^2); gives output sqrt(x^2), and *not* x. Command ratsimp also does not affect this expression. Version information: Maxima 5.19.1, Using Lisp ECL 9.10.2. I could not get any output from function bug_report() or build_info(). Command run_testsuite() retuns 'done'.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100122 19:55 Message: For a negative symbol x Maxima simplifies the sqrt function the following way: (%i1) assume(x<0)$ (%i2) sqrt(x^2); (%o2) x The function fullratsimp is not needed and does not change anything for this example. We always get for this example: (%i3) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o3) true The only way I have found to get the reported oberservation is to give the variable x a positive value. (Maxima does not give an error if we assign a positive value to a symbol which is assumed to be negative). (%i6) x:10; (%o6) 10 Now the sqrt function simplifies to a positive value: (%i7) sqrt(x^2); (%o7) 10 We get false for the example from above: (%i9) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o9) false I think there is no real problem. Setting the status to pending and the resoltution to invalid. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100123 13:07:45

Bugs item #2937182, was opened at 20100122 16:05 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by kirzhanov You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&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: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Assume does not always affect ratsimp/fullratsimp result Initial Comment: First, assume that x>=0: assume(x>=0); facts(); // returns x>=0 is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns TRUE Now, forget about x>=0 and assume x<0: forget(x>=0); assume(x<0); facts(); // returns 0>x is(fullratsimp(sqrt(x^2))=x); // returns FALSE Is the expected result here TRUE instead of FALSE? For me this result is unexpected. It was achieved using the SAGE 4.3 system which is shipped with Maxima 5.20. I'm not sure this bug is related to Maxima, but it seems so. The behavior of this Maxima 5.20 built into the SAGE system differs from behavior of Maxima 5.17.1 which was used by me previously. Because of such difference I receive not exactly incorrect, but slightly different results in the newer version of Maxima. Thus it seems to me that the results given by the latest version can be simplified at higher degree. Cheers, Dima  >Comment By: Dmitry Kirzhanov (kirzhanov) Date: 20100123 16:07 Message: On my compilation command sequence assume(x<0); sqrt(x^2); gives output sqrt(x^2), and *not* x. Command ratsimp also does not affect this expression. Version information: Maxima 5.19.1, Using Lisp ECL 9.10.2. I could not get any output from function bug_report() or build_info(). Command run_testsuite() retuns 'done'.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20100122 21:55 Message: For a negative symbol x Maxima simplifies the sqrt function the following way: (%i1) assume(x<0)$ (%i2) sqrt(x^2); (%o2) x The function fullratsimp is not needed and does not change anything for this example. We always get for this example: (%i3) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o3) true The only way I have found to get the reported oberservation is to give the variable x a positive value. (Maxima does not give an error if we assign a positive value to a symbol which is assumed to be negative). (%i6) x:10; (%o6) 10 Now the sqrt function simplifies to a positive value: (%i7) sqrt(x^2); (%o7) 10 We get false for the example from above: (%i9) is(sqrt(x^2)=x); (%o9) false I think there is no real problem. Setting the status to pending and the resoltution to invalid. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2937182&group_id=4933 