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}
(21) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 


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

6

7
(5) 
8
(9) 
9

10
(2) 
11
(6) 
12
(12) 
13
(5) 
14
(7) 
15
(4) 
16
(4) 
17

18

19
(2) 
20
(7) 
21
(9) 
22
(7) 
23
(6) 
24
(5) 
25
(12) 
26
(12) 
27
(10) 
28
(4) 
29
(4) 
30
(5) 
31




From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 23:40:25

Bugs item #2977307, was opened at 20100326 22:35 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977307&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: Deleted Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://me.yahoo.com/a/eusus3Ud () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: x*cos(x/2) Initial Comment: integrate(x*(cos(x/2)),x) and f(n):=expand(integrate(x*(n+cos(x/2)),x)integrate(n*x,x)); are same function but... When n are even numbers, results are always 1/2 (%i2) f(1); (%o2) 2*x*sin(x/2)+4*cos(x/2) (%i3) f(2); (%o3) x*sin(x/2)+2*cos(x/2) (%i4) f(3);(%o4) 2*x*sin(x/2)+4*cos(x/2) (%i5) f(4); ***** if f(n) is defined as f(n):=expand(integrate(x*n+x*cos(x/2),x)integrate(n*x,x)) f(n) gives always correct answer. (%o5) x*sin(x/2)+2*cos(x/2)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977307&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 23:35:51

Bugs item #2977332, was opened at 20100326 23:34 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977332&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: Deleted Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://me.yahoo.com/a/eusus3Ud () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: x*cos(x/2) Initial Comment: integrate(x*(cos(x/2)),x) and f(n):=expand(integrate(x*(n+cos(x/2)),x)integrate(n*x,x)); are same function but... When n are even numbers, results are always 1/2 (%i2) f(1); (%o2) 2*x*sin(x/2)+4*cos(x/2) (%i3) f(2); (%o3) x*sin(x/2)+2*cos(x/2) (%i4) f(3);(%o4) 2*x*sin(x/2)+4*cos(x/2) (%i5) f(4); ***** if f(n) is defined as f(n):=expand(integrate(x*n+x*cos(x/2),x)integrate(n*x,x)) f(n) gives always correct answer. (%o5) x*sin(x/2)+2*cos(x/2)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977332&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 23:34:57

Bugs item #2977332, was opened at 20100326 23:34 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977332&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: https://me.yahoo.com/a/eusus3Ud () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: x*cos(x/2) Initial Comment: integrate(x*(cos(x/2)),x) and f(n):=expand(integrate(x*(n+cos(x/2)),x)integrate(n*x,x)); are same function but... When n are even numbers, results are always 1/2 (%i2) f(1); (%o2) 2*x*sin(x/2)+4*cos(x/2) (%i3) f(2); (%o3) x*sin(x/2)+2*cos(x/2) (%i4) f(3);(%o4) 2*x*sin(x/2)+4*cos(x/2) (%i5) f(4); ***** if f(n) is defined as f(n):=expand(integrate(x*n+x*cos(x/2),x)integrate(n*x,x)) f(n) gives always correct answer. (%o5) x*sin(x/2)+2*cos(x/2)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977332&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 22:35:05

Bugs item #2977307, was opened at 20100326 22:35 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977307&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: https://me.yahoo.com/a/eusus3Ud () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: x*cos(x/2) Initial Comment: integrate(x*(cos(x/2)),x) and f(n):=expand(integrate(x*(n+cos(x/2)),x)integrate(n*x,x)); are same function but... When n are even numbers, results are always 1/2 (%i2) f(1); (%o2) 2*x*sin(x/2)+4*cos(x/2) (%i3) f(2); (%o3) x*sin(x/2)+2*cos(x/2) (%i4) f(3);(%o4) 2*x*sin(x/2)+4*cos(x/2) (%i5) f(4); ***** if f(n) is defined as f(n):=expand(integrate(x*n+x*cos(x/2),x)integrate(n*x,x)) f(n) gives always correct answer. (%o5) x*sin(x/2)+2*cos(x/2)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977307&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 20:40:35

Bugs item #2977217, was opened at 20100326 20:58 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by alex108 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977217&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: maxima can not integrate x*exp(1/2*(xm)^2) Initial Comment: Maxima can not integrate the function x*exp(1/2*(xm)^2) Maxima 5.20.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.8 (a.k.a. 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) integrate(x*exp(1/2*(xm)^2),x); 2 (x  m) /   [ 2 (%o1) I x %e dx ] / The correct solution would be (%i2) diff(exp(1/2*x^2+m*x1/2*m^2)+1/2*m*sqrt(%pi)*sqrt(2)*erf(1/2*sqrt(2)*x1/2*m*sqrt(2)),x); 2 2 x m 2 x m  (  )   + m x   sqrt(2) sqrt(2) 2 2 (%o2) m %e  (m  x) %e  Comment By: Aleksas Domarkas (alex108) Date: 20100326 22:40 Message: (%i1) S:'integrate(x*exp(1/2*(xm)^2),x); (%o1) integrate(x*%e^((xm)^2/2),x) (%i2) changevar(S, y=xm, y, x); (%o2) integrate((y+m)*%e^(y^2/2),y) (%i3) ev(%, nouns); (%o3) (sqrt(%pi)*m*erf(y/sqrt(2)))/sqrt(2)%e^(y^2/2) Solution: (%i4) sol:subst(y=xm,%),rootscontract; (%o4) sqrt(%pi/2)*m*erf((xm)/sqrt(2))%e^((xm)^2/2) Test: (%i5) diff(sol,x)first(S)$ (%i6) expand(%); (%o6) 0  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977217&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 18:58:55

Bugs item #2977217, was opened at 20100326 18:58 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977217&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: maxima can not integrate x*exp(1/2*(xm)^2) Initial Comment: Maxima can not integrate the function x*exp(1/2*(xm)^2) Maxima 5.20.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.8 (a.k.a. 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) integrate(x*exp(1/2*(xm)^2),x); 2 (x  m) /   [ 2 (%o1) I x %e dx ] / The correct solution would be (%i2) diff(exp(1/2*x^2+m*x1/2*m^2)+1/2*m*sqrt(%pi)*sqrt(2)*erf(1/2*sqrt(2)*x1/2*m*sqrt(2)),x); 2 2 x m 2 x m  (  )   + m x   sqrt(2) sqrt(2) 2 2 (%o2) m %e  (m  x) %e  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2977217&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 14:09:56

Bugs item #2914376, was opened at 20091214 20:20 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by villate You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2914376&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: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 7 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Jaime E. Villate (villate) Summary: implicit_plot error Initial Comment: On Ubuntu 9.10 (%i1) load(implicit_plot)$ (%i2) implicit_plot (x^2 = y^3  3*y + 1, [x, 4, 4], [y, 4, 4], [gnuplot_preamble, "set zeroaxis"])$ Maxima encountered a Lisp error: EVAL: too few arguments given to GNUPLOTPRINTHEADER: #1=(GNUPLOTPRINTHEADER FILE) Automatically continuing. To enable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil. (%i3) build_info()$ Maxima version: 5.20.1 Maxima build date: 10:1 12/14/2009 Host type: x86_64unknownlinuxgnu Lisp implementation type: CLISP Lisp implementation version: 2.44.1 (20080223) (built on loszerafin [127.0.1.1])  >Comment By: Jaime E. Villate (villate) Date: 20100326 14:09 Message: That bug was fixed shortly after version 5.20.1 was released. The current CVS version of implicit_plot does not give that error. Very soon (when the CVS server starts working again) I will also commit a new version of implicit_plot which is more consistent with plot2d. That means that in future versions you can simply write: implicit_plot (x^2 = y^3  3*y + 1, [x, 4, 4], [y, 4, 4]); and the plot will have x and y axes. If you want to remove those axes you will be able to use the option [axes,false]  Comment By: Jaime E. Villate (villate) Date: 20091215 01:12 Message: This was an error accidentally introduced by me in the latest changes made to plot.lisp. I have just fixed in in the CVS head branch, but this bug remains in versions 5.20.0 and 5.20.1. (If a new minor version 5.20.2 is released, it should have this bug fixed.)  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2914376&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 13:40:15

Bugs item #2976744, was opened at 20100325 22:44 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by villate You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2976744&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: Fixed Priority: 7 Private: No Submitted By: Jaime E. Villate (villate) Assigned to: Jaime E. Villate (villate) Summary: postscript terminal requires manual reset of default termina Initial Comment: Bug reported by Leo Butler in the Users list: When using the gnuplot_pipes plot format, the use of [gnuplot_preamble,"set terminal postscript ...] appears to require that subsequent calls manually reset the terminal to the default.  >Comment By: Jaime E. Villate (villate) Date: 20100326 13:40 Message: This bug has been fixed, but its solution has not been committed to the repository yet because the CVS sever is currently down. It will be committed when the server goes up again. The problem was introduced when the default gnuplot terminal command for Unix systems was changed from "x11" to empty. That was done to allow different installations to use their default terminal, which in most cases is better than "x11" (wxt is much nicer than x11). The change worked fine when the gnuplot format was used, because in that case a new gnuplot session is started for each plot command. However, when the gnuplot_pipes format is used, a plot command does not start a new gnuplot session but instead the plot is sent to an open gnuplot session. When the terminal was changed into postscript and then back to the default terminal, this last step did not change the terminal, leaving it as postscript. To avoid that problem while letting each site use its own default terminal, the default gnuplot terminal command will now be defined as "set term pop", which restores the initial terminal used when gnuplot was started; in fact, it is a good idea to use the same command at Windows sites, anticipating that different Windows versions of gnuplot might have a default terminal different from the "windows" terminal currently used.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2976744&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 13:04:05

Bugs item #2907727, was opened at 20091202 15:19 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2907727&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Incorrect Integral with option integrate_use_rootsof :true Initial Comment: This integral previously crashed maxima, see bug 2906049. Now it gives the wrong answer. integrate_use_rootsof : true; integrate((d*QA^2+2*c*QA+3*b)/(g*QA^3*R+d*QA^2+c*QA+b),QA); yields: lsum(((%r1^2*d+2*%r1*c+3*b)*g*log(QA%r1)*R)/(3*%r1^2*g*R+2*%r1*d+c),%r1,rootsof(g*QA^3*R+d*QA^2+c*QA+b)) but the correct answer is lsum(((%r1^2*d+2*%r1*c+3*b)*log(QA%r1))/(3*%r1^2*g*R+2*%r1*d+c),%r1,rootsof(g*QA^3*R+d*QA^2+c*QA+b)) I'm using Maxima version: 5.20post Maxima build date: 9:7 12/2/2009 Host type: i686pclinuxgnu Lisp implementation type: CLISP Lisp implementation version: 2.44.1 (20080223) (built 3427367244) (memory 3468751644)  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100326 09:04 Message: I think multiplying by the leading factor is wrong. I think the algorithm is basically a partial fraction expansion of N(x)/D(x) = sum(A(n)/(xr(n)), n=1,N) where r(n) is a root of D(x). The constant A(n) can be determined by computing limit(N(x)*D(x)/(xr), x, r), but that's basically N(r)*at(diff(D(x),x), [x=r]). The code basically does this, but multiplies by the leading factor.  Comment By: Dieter Kaiser (crategus) Date: 20091202 17:52 Message: I had a look at wolfram alpha and I have got as a reference the following result: integral (d x^2+2 c x+3 b)/(g r x^3+d x^2+c x+b) dx = RootSum[#1^3 g r+#1^2 d+#1 c+b&, (#1^2 d log(x#1)+3 b log(x#1)+2 #1 c log(x#1))/(3 #1^2 g r+2 #1 d+c)&]+constant This corresponds to your solution. Maxima has an extra factor g*r. So, the algorithm now is working, but it seems to be wrong. The extra factor is the leading coefficient of the denominator. This factor is extracted and multiplied into the result by the algorithm. Dieter Kaiser  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2907727&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 11:44:25

Bugs item #2976378, was opened at 20100325 11:48 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by alex108 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2976378&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: Joerg (genkides) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Solver doesn't finish Initial Comment: I had the following equation typed into wxMaxima 0.8.4: 2000=1000*1.072^x Then calling the solver: solve([%], [x]) returned two messages: rat: replaced 1.072 by 134/125 = 1.072 [134^x=2*125^x] instead of the solution: log(2)/log(1.072)  Comment By: Aleksas Domarkas (alex108) Date: 20100326 13:44 Message: better solution: (%i1) solve(2000=1000*1.072^x),simp=false; rat: replaced 1.072 by 134/125 = 1.072 (%o1) [x=log(2)/log(134/125)]  Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20100326 13:28 Message: Setting simp to false is a workaround that will, in general, cause other problems; a better workaround: (%i6) solve(rationalize(2000=1000*1.072^x),x); (%o6) [x=log(2)/log(1206964700135293/1125899906842624)]  Comment By: Aleksas Domarkas (alex108) Date: 20100326 00:19 Message: > simp:false; (%o15) false > eq:2000=1000*1.072^x; (%o16) 2000=1000*1.072^x > solve(eq); rat: replaced 1.072 by 134/125 = 1.072 (%o17) [x=log(2)/log(134/125)]  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2976378&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 11:28:37

Bugs item #2976378, was opened at 20100325 04:48 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by willisbl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2976378&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: Joerg (genkides) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Solver doesn't finish Initial Comment: I had the following equation typed into wxMaxima 0.8.4: 2000=1000*1.072^x Then calling the solver: solve([%], [x]) returned two messages: rat: replaced 1.072 by 134/125 = 1.072 [134^x=2*125^x] instead of the solution: log(2)/log(1.072)  >Comment By: Barton Willis (willisbl) Date: 20100326 06:28 Message: Setting simp to false is a workaround that will, in general, cause other problems; a better workaround: (%i6) solve(rationalize(2000=1000*1.072^x),x); (%o6) [x=log(2)/log(1206964700135293/1125899906842624)]  Comment By: Aleksas Domarkas (alex108) Date: 20100325 17:19 Message: > simp:false; (%o15) false > eq:2000=1000*1.072^x; (%o16) 2000=1000*1.072^x > solve(eq); rat: replaced 1.072 by 134/125 = 1.072 (%o17) [x=log(2)/log(134/125)]  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2976378&group_id=4933 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20100326 01:05:24

Bugs item #2843954, was opened at 20090824 20:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rtoy You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843954&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: Barton Willis (willisbl) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: limit of trig expression Initial Comment: (%i55) e : (2*sin(x)*z+cos(x)*sin(2*x)2*cos(x)^2*sin(x))/(z^2+(sin(2*x)^24*sin(x)^2cos(x)^21)*z+sin(2*x)^24*cos(x)*sin(x)*sin(2*x)+4*cos(x)^2*sin(x)^2); (%o55) (2*sin(x)*z+cos(x)*sin(2*x)2*cos(x)^2*sin(x))/(z^2+(sin(2*x)^24*sin(x)^2cos(x)^21)*z+sin(2*x)^24*cos(x)*sin(x)*sin(2*x)+4*cos(x)^2*sin(x)^2) (%i56) limit(e,z,0); (%o56) cos(x)/(sin(2*x)2*cos(x)*sin(x)) Bogus: (%i57) trigexpand(%); Division by 0  an error. To debug this try debugmode(true); OK: (%i58) limit(trigexpand(e),z,0); (%o58) (2*sin(x))/((4*cos(x)^2+4)*sin(x)^2+cos(x)^2+1)  >Comment By: Raymond Toy (rtoy) Date: 20100325 21:05 Message: I think limit basically evaluates the limit of the numerator and denominator. It thinks there are are no problems with either because the terms without z look fine, but, in fact, are exactly zero for all x. Not sure what can be done in this case. I do see that in limitsimp there is a hack to handle sin(x)^2+cos(x)^2. I suppose we could do trigexpand in addition to the hack, but that seems as if it could potentially complicate limit a lot.  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=2843954&group_id=4933 