maxima-discuss — Maxima discussion list

[Maxima-discuss] AI for Math -- call for grant proposals

[Richard F. <fa...@gm...>]

https://www.renaissancephilanthropy.org/ai-for-math-fund

I don't know any more than what is on this page.
RJF

Re: [Maxima-discuss] I keep getting the same error while making plots. I have the variable t, min max are defined above

[Jaime V. <vi...@fe...>]

How did you get that error message? By repeating the commands in the PDF 
file I get the following numerical values for t0 and t8

(%i37) [t0,t8];
(%o37)                      [0, 1.4000000000000006]

I'm sending in the attachment the batch file I used, which has just some 
minor changes with respect to the PDF file sent by Peter Nachtwey.

Regards,

Jaime

On 3/6/26 14:16, Michel Talon wrote:
>
> Apparently in plot2d(pva(t)[1],[t,t0,t8],...   t0 and t8 do not 
> evaluate to numerical values. since the error message says found 
> [t,t0,t8] and not something like [t,1,10].
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] I keep getting the same error while making plots. I have the variable t, min max are defined above

[Michel T. <ta...@lp...>]

Apparently in plot2d(pva(t)[1],[t,t0,t8],...   t0 and t8 do not evaluate 
to numerical values. since the error message says found [t,t0,t8] and 
not something like [t,1,10].


Le 05/03/2026 à 18:24, Peter Nachtwey a écrit :
> Hello,
>     I have attached my worksheet.  Scroll to the end where I try to 
> plot position, velocity and acceleration.   I get an error even 
> thought I specify a variable, min and max limit.  This used to work 
> years ago.   I just updated to the latest version from SourceForge.
>
> ​Seg1234567.pdf 
> <https://1drv.ms/b/c/b12433534c797e48/IQBJq20nwaFfQ7wByEvAaTF8AVU6z8aaqOfencYdQcQSCK0>​
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Nachtwey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss

-- 
Michel Talon

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Another solve toughie

[Michel T. <ta...@lp...>]

Le 04/03/2026 à 22:52, Richard Fateman a écrit :
> solve( y =  (sqrt(4*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))/(sqrt(9*x+1)-sqrt(x+1)) , x);
>
> a solution is x= -((4*(y-1)*y*(8*y-3))/((2*y-1)*(2*y+3)*(4*y-3)*(4*y+1)))
>
> a challenge might also be:  prove that
> f(x) := if x=0 then 3/8 else 
> (sqrt(4*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))/(sqrt(9*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))
> is continuous everywhere.
>
>
> RJF


This equation is very interesting. First thing obvious, how is it that 
one can find such a simple solution for such  a complicated equation? A 
way to get this result is the following: assume s=sqrt(x+1), 
t=sqrt(9x+1), u=sqrt(4x+1), then our equation reads y*(t-s)-u+s=0 so we 
get a system in which we eliminate s,t,u.

(%i2) eliminate([y*(t-s)-u+s,u^2-4*x-1,t^2-9*x-1,s^2-x-1],[s,t,u]);

(%o2) [x^4*(x*(64*y^4+32*y^3-92*y^2+12*y+9)+32*y^3-44*y^2+12*y)^4]

from which it is obvious that the solution (note that the expression is 
simple in x, complicated in y, i don't know why) is:

(%i3) solve(%,x);

(%o3) [x = -((32*y^3-44*y^2+12*y)/(64*y^4+32*y^3-92*y^2+12*y+9)),x = 0]

(%i4) factor(%);

(%o4) [x = -((4*(y-1)*y*(8*y-3))/((2*y-1)*(2*y+3)*(4*y-3)*(4*y+1))),x = 0]

as claimed above. Since eliminate may produce spurious solutions, it is 
necessary to look at the graphs of y=y(x)and x=x(y) to see that they are 
indeed inverses to one another- assuming we are interested in real 
solutions. For y=y(x) one must have x>=-1/9, and x can go to + infinity, 
going through x=0 at which one has an indeterminate form that Taylor 
reduces to 3/8.

plot2d((sqrt(4*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))/(sqrt(9*x+1)-sqrt(x+1)),[x,-1/9,10]);

shows that y(x) is increasing monotonically from (4-sqrt(10))/4 = 0.2094 
for x=-1/9 (as Taylor shows) to 0.5 at x= + infinity.So when examining 
x=x(y) one has to restrict to 0.2094 < y < 0.5. Plotting shows x=x(y)  
is also monotonically increasing from -1/9 to infinity obtained when 
y=1/2  as obvious from %o4. It is then clear that we have a correct 
solution to the equation, and that this is the *only* real solution to 
the equation.

However i have seen a small problem.

radcan(subst(x= -((32*y^3-44*y^2+12*y)/(64*y^4+32*y^3-92*y^2+12*y+9)),
(sqrt(4*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))/(sqrt(9*x+1)-sqrt(x+1)));

yields not y as one may expect, but (3*y-3)/(8*y-3).  It happens that y 
-> (3*y-3)/(8*y-3) is an involution (its square is identity). I suppose 
this is because radcan makes some choices that are inappropriate here. 
This points to the dangers floating around the use of (sqrt(z))^2=z and 
such stuff.

This is the occasion to remark that augmenting maxima solve program by 
stuff such as taking the log of both sides, or taking the square of both 
sides (as i have shown in the same thread), is not necessarily well 
advised, and will certainly be ineffective for examples as the present 
one. There are things that must be done with conscient thought of the 
end user.


-- 
Michel Talon

Re: [Maxima-discuss] I keep getting the same error while making plots. I have the variable t, min max are defined above

[Jaime V. <vi...@fe...>]

Hello,

It works fine for me, using plot2d instead of wxplot2d, giving the three 
plots in the attachments. We are the authors of plot2d but not wxplotd2. 
You will have to ask the wxMaxima developers who are the authors of 
wxplot2d.


Regards,

Jaime


On 3/5/26 17:24, Peter Nachtwey wrote:
> Hello,
>     I have attached my worksheet.  Scroll to the end where I try to 
> plot position, velocity and acceleration.   I get an error even 
> thought I specify a variable, min and max limit.  This used to work 
> years ago.   I just updated to the latest version from SourceForge.
>
> ​Seg1234567.pdf 
> <https://1drv.ms/b/c/b12433534c797e48/IQBJq20nwaFfQ7wByEvAaTF8AVU6z8aaqOfencYdQcQSCK0>​
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Nachtwey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss

Re: [Maxima-discuss] MCP server

[Dimiter P. <dim...@gm...>]

Hi Viktor,
do you self-host the model? How did you integrate Maxima to the model?

kind regards,

Dimiter

On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 4:59 AM Viktor T. Toth <vt...@vt...> wrote:

> Not MCP and not formal function calling, but my AI chatbot implementation
> has been able to invoke Maxima since early 2023.
>
>
> The implementation is model-agnostic (this is a test with Qwen-3.5 that I
> added just the other day.)
>
>
> Viktor
>
>
>
> On 2026-03-05 20:57, Leo Butler wrote:
>
> IMO, far more useful would be to code a `message' interface in Maxima
> that would enable Maxima to communicate in `machine-readable form.' I
> think this is a frequent request of Wolfgang's. Right now, there's 50+
> years of code that throws strings at a terminal...
>
> OTOH, maybe someone should ask Claude or ChatGPT to do this for us, no?
>
> Leo
>
> On Tue, Mar 03 2026, Matthias Koeppe via Maxima-discuss <max...@li...> <max...@li...> wrote:
>
>
> Probably easy to do using existing Python interfaces to Maxima.https://pypi.org/project/passagemath-maxima/
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 11:38 AM Dimiter Prodanov <dim...@gm...> <dim...@gm...> wrote:
>
> I am interested but how can we implement it?
> Dimiter
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 6:21 PM Richard Fateman <fa...@gm...> <fa...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Anyone looking at hooking up maxima to AI via MCP?
> There's a Mathematica one as a model ..
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Why can't Maxima solve 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2) symbolically? PEBCAK or a limitation?

[Matthias A. S. <mat...@we...>]

Dear Barton,

thanks for your suggestion. I tried to apply the first in 1.0.6 (see below). For aesthetic reasons, formatting issues in the TeXmacs maxima-plugin, I didn’t go for the alternative. Here’s how the program behaves now:

(%i1)  kill(all)$
(%i1)  load("all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.6.mac")$

(%i2)  eq1: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2)$
(%i3)  sols1: all_solutions(eq1, x)$
(%i4)  real(eq1, x);
(%o4) x=-(2/3)
(%i5)  complex(eq1, x);
(%o5) x=-((2*i*π*k)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3
(%i6)  complex_report(eq1, x);
(%o6) [x=-((2*i*π*k+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(3*log (7)-3*log (5))),x=-((2*i*π*k)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3]
  
(%i7)  eq2: 5^(3*k+2) = 7^(2*k+2)$
(%i8)  sols2: all_solutions(eq2, k)$
(%i9)  real_solution(eq2, k);
(%o9) k=-((2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i10)  complex(eq2, k);
(%o10) k=-((2*i*π*kk+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
 (%i11)  complex_report(5^(3*k+2) = 7^(3*k+2), k);
(%o11) [k=-((2*i*π*kk+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(3*log (7)-3*log (5))),k=-((2*i*π*kk)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3]
  
(%i12)  eq3: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(2*x+1)$
(%i13)  sols3: all_solutions(eq3, x)$
(%i14)  real_solution(eq3, x);
(%o14) x=-((log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i15)  complex_solution(eq3, x);
(%o15) x=-((2*i*π*k+log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i16)  complex_report(eq3, x);
(%o16) x=-((2*i*π*k+log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))

(%i17)  complex(5^(3*x+2) + 1 = 7^(3*x+2), x);
#0: complex_solution(eq=5^(3*x+2)+1 = 7^(3*x+2),x=x) (all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.6.mac line 161)
#1: complex(eq=5^(3*x+2)+1 = 7^(3*x+2),x=x) (all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.6.mac line 181)
all_solutions: expected LHS to be a power of a^u. Got LHS =  5^(3*x+2)+1
 -- an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true);
 
(%i18)  try_complex(5^(3*x+2) + 1 = 7^(3*x+2), x);
all_solutions: expected LHS to be a power of a^u. Got LHS = 5^(3*x+2)+1 
(%o18) unsolved

(%i19)  k: %pi/6$
(%i20)  eq1: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2)$
(%i21)  complex_solution(eq1, x);
(%o21) x=-((2*i*π*k)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3

(%i22)  try_complex(5^(3*x+2)+1 = 7^(3*x+2), x);
all_solutions: expected LHS to be a power of a^u. Got LHS = 5^(3*x+2)+1 
(%o22) unsolved

Cheers, Tilda



> Am 05.03.2026 um 18:44 schrieb Barton Willis <wi...@un...>:
> 
> I think your code should quote k, kk, kkk  and unsolved.  Otherwise:
> 
> %i5) k : %pi/6$
> 
> (%i6) eq1 : 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2);
> (eq1) 5^(3*x+2)=7^(3*x+2)
> 
> (%i7) complex_solution(eq1, x);
> (%o7) x=-((%i*%pi^2)/(9*log(7/5)))-2/3
> 
> Alternatively, you might like to consider using a gensym variable (see user documentation).
> 

Re: [Maxima-discuss] MCP server

[Viktor T. T. <vt...@vt...>]

Not MCP and not formal function calling, but my AI chatbot 
implementation has been able to invoke Maxima since early 2023.


The implementation is model-agnostic (this is a test with Qwen-3.5 that 
I added just the other day.)


Viktor



On 2026-03-05 20:57, Leo Butler wrote:
> IMO, far more useful would be to code a `message' interface in Maxima
> that would enable Maxima to communicate in `machine-readable form.' I
> think this is a frequent request of Wolfgang's. Right now, there's 50+
> years of code that throws strings at a terminal...
>
> OTOH, maybe someone should ask Claude or ChatGPT to do this for us, no?
>
> Leo
>
> On Tue, Mar 03 2026, Matthias Koeppe via Maxima-discuss<max...@li...> wrote:
>
>> Probably easy to do using existing Python interfaces to Maxima.
>> https://pypi.org/project/passagemath-maxima/
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 11:38 AM Dimiter Prodanov<dim...@gm...> wrote:
>>> I am interested but how can we implement it?
>>> Dimiter
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 6:21 PM Richard Fateman<fa...@gm...> wrote:
>>>> Anyone looking at hooking up maxima to AI via MCP?
>>>> There's a Mathematica one as a model ..
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Maxima-discuss mailing list
>>>> Max...@li...
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Maxima-discuss mailing list
>>> Max...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss

Re: [Maxima-discuss] MCP server

[Leo B. <Leo...@um...>]

IMO, far more useful would be to code a `message' interface in Maxima
that would enable Maxima to communicate in `machine-readable form.' I
think this is a frequent request of Wolfgang's. Right now, there's 50+
years of code that throws strings at a terminal...

OTOH, maybe someone should ask Claude or ChatGPT to do this for us, no?

Leo

On Tue, Mar 03 2026, Matthias Koeppe via Maxima-discuss <max...@li...> wrote:

> Probably easy to do using existing Python interfaces to Maxima.
> https://pypi.org/project/passagemath-maxima/
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 11:38 AM Dimiter Prodanov <dim...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> I am interested but how can we implement it?
>> Dimiter
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 6:21 PM Richard Fateman <fa...@gm...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone looking at hooking up maxima to AI via MCP?
>>> There's a Mathematica one as a model ..
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Maxima-discuss mailing list
>>> Max...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Maxima-discuss mailing list
>> Max...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss

-- 
---
Best regards,
Dr Butler

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Why can't Maxima solve 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2) symbolically? PEBCAK or a limitation?

[Barton W. <wi...@un...>]

I think your code should quote k, kk, kkk  and unsolved.  Otherwise:

%i5) k : %pi/6$

(%i6) eq1 : 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2);
(eq1) 5^(3*x+2)=7^(3*x+2)

(%i7) complex_solution(eq1, x);
(%o7) x=-((%i*%pi^2)/(9*log(7/5)))-2/3

Alternatively, you might like to consider using a gensym variable (see user documentation).

________________________________
From: Matthias A.Steiner <mat...@we...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:26 PM
To: Barton Willis <wi...@un...>; Max...@li... <Max...@li...>
Subject: Re: [Maxima-discuss] Why can't Maxima solve 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2) symbolically? PEBCAK or a limitation?

Caution: Non-NU Email

Dear Barton,

Thanks for your spot-on comments, which I tried to apply in v1.0.2. I’ve attached the file below. Here's what it does.

(%i1)  kill(all)$
(%i1)  load("all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.2.mac")$

(%i2)  eq1: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2)$
(%i3)  sols1: all_solutions(eq1, x)$
(%i4)  real(eq1, x);
(%o4) x=-(2/3)
(%i5)  complex(eq1, x);
(%o5) x=-((2*i*π*k)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3
(%i6)  complex_report(eq1, x);
(%o6) [x=-((2*i*π*k+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(3*log (7)-3*log (5))),x=-((2*i*π*k)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3]

(%i7)  eq2: 5^(3*k+2) = 7^(2*k+2)$
(%i8)  sols2: all_solutions(eq2, k)$
(%i9)  real_solution(eq2, k);
(%o9) k=-((2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i10)  complex(eq2, k);
(%o10) k=-((2*i*π*kk+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i11)  complex_report(5^(3*k+2) = 7^(3*k+2), k);
%o11) [k=-((2*i*π*kk+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(3*log (7)-3*log (5))),k=-((2*i*π*kk)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3]

(%i12)  eq3: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(2*x+1)$
(%i13)  sols3: all_solutions(eq3, x)$
(%i14)  real_solution(eq3, x);
(%o14) x=-((log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i15)  complex_solution(eq3, x);
(%o15) x=-((2*i*π*k+log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i16)  complex_report(eq3, x);
(%o16) x=-((2*i*π*k+log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))

(%i17)  complex(5^(3*x+2) + 1 = 7^(3*x+2), x);
#0: all_solutions_k(eq=5^(3*x+2)+1 = 7^(3*x+2),x=x,ksym=k) (all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.2.mac line 95)
#1: all_solutions(eq=5^(3*x+2)+1 = 7^(3*x+2),x=x) (all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.2.mac line 121)
#2: complex_solution(eq=5^(3*x+2)+1 = 7^(3*x+2),x=x) (all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.2.mac line 141)
all_solutions: expected LHS to be a power a^u. Got LHS =  5^(3*x+2)+1
 -- an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true);

(%i18)  try_complex(5^(3*x+2) + 1 = 7^(3*x+2), x);
all_solutions: expected LHS to be a power a^u. Got LHS =  5^(3*x+2)+1
(%o18) unsolved

Any suggestions or comments are more than welcome.

Cheers, Tilda



Am 04.03.2026 um 16:03 schrieb Barton Willis <wi...@un...>:

I tried the code in  all_exp_eq_solutions_v0.2.6.mac. Some comments:

When the solve variable is k, the result is an expression that has k with two meanings:

(%i7) complex(5^(3*k+2) = 7^(3*k+2),k);
(%o7) k=-((2*%i*%pi*k)/(3*log(7/5)))-2/3

When the base of the exponential isn't a constant, the result isn't wrong, but the equation isn't solved:

(%i8) complex(x^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2),x);
(%o8) x=-((2*%i*%pi*k)/(3*log(7/x)))-2/3

The code assumes a very specific set of equations;  when  it isn't, the user gets a hard to understand error message:

(%i11)      complex(5^(3*x+2) + 1 = 7^(3*x+2),x);
pow_parts: expected a power a^e, got:  5^(3*x+2)+1

The function complex_report  uses simp as a local variable. But simp is a Maxima option variable—when it is false, Maxima doesn't simplify expressions, and much of Maxima will not work as expected.  Likely, you should name this local variable something else.

I hope these comments might help make your code better -- please keep us up on your efforts.

--Barton

[Maxima-discuss] I keep getting the same error while making plots. I have the variable t, min max are defined above

[Peter N. <pna...@li...>]

Hello,
    I have attached my worksheet.  Scroll to the end where I try to plot position, velocity and acceleration.   I get an error even thought I specify a variable, min and max limit.  This used to work years ago.   I just updated to the latest version from SourceForge.

​[https://res.public.onecdn.static.microsoft/assets/fluentui-resources/1.1.0/app-min/assets/item-types/24/pdf.png]Seg1234567.pdf<https://1drv.ms/b/c/b12433534c797e48/IQBJq20nwaFfQ7wByEvAaTF8AVU6z8aaqOfencYdQcQSCK0>​

Regards,

Peter Nachtwey

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Why can't Maxima solve 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2) symbolically? PEBCAK or a limitation?

[Jaime V. <vi...@fe...>]

Hello Barton,

Very nice solution. I have a couple of comments:


1. If one uses radcan right after %o10, me can see the "naive" solution 
x=-2/3


(%o10) %union([x = -(log(49/25)/log(343/125))])
(%i11) radcan(%);
(%o11) %union([x = -(2/3)])


2. I wish we also had an "equation_convert" that would transform the 
original equation (eq1) into another equation (eq3) that %solve can 
solve right away, like this:


(%i1) eq1: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2)$
(%i2) eq3: lhs(eq1)/rhs(eq1)=1$
(%i3) load(to_poly_solve)$
(%i4) %solve(eq3,x);
(%o4) %union([x = (2*%i*%pi*%z802+log(25/49))/log(343/125)])

Regards,

Jaime


On 3/3/26 22:54, Barton Willis via Maxima-discuss wrote:
> Here is my solution—I'll look at your solution in a bit.  To try this 
> for yourself,  you'll need a recent version of function_convert 
> <https://github.com/barton-willis/function_convert>
>
> (%i1) load(function_convert)$
>
> Define a converter that standardizes the base of an exponential to 
> %e.   The repeated "^" = standardize_base looks weird --- the second 
> is an alias for the first:
>
> (%i2) register_converter("^" = standardize_base, "^" = 
> standardize_base, lambda([a,b], exp(b*log(a))));
> (%o2) done
>
> Standardize the base to %e:
>
> (%i3) eq1: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2)$
>
> (%i4) eq2 : function_convert("^" = standardize_base, eq1);
> (eq2) %e^(log(5)*(3*x+2))=%e^(log(7)*(3*x+2))
>
> And solve with to_poly_solve:
>
> (%i5) load(to_poly_solve)$
>
> (%i8) sol : %solve(eq2,x);
> (sol) %union([x=-((2*%i*%pi*%z927+log(49/25))/log(343/125))])
>
> Reset the pesky counter to zero:
>
> (%i9) sol : nicedummies(sol);
> (sol) %union([x=-((2*%i*%pi*%z0+log(49/25))/log(343/125))])
>
> Let's find a real solution --- we need to use carbon-based computing 
> (our brains) to see that we need to set %z0 to zero:
>
> (%i10)      solX : subst(%z0=0,sol);
> (solX)      %union([x=-(log(49/25)/log(343/125))])
>
> Let's check --- always check:
>
> (%i11)      subst(first(solX),eq1);
> (%o11)      5^(2-(3*log(49/25))/log(343/125))=7^(2-(3*log(49/25))/log(343/125))
>
> (%i12)      radcan(%);
> (%o12)      1=1
>
> There are light-weight methods to standardize the base to %e, using 
> function_convert isn't needed.  Something like  subst("^" =  
> lambda([a,b], exp(b*log(a)), xxx)) will work.
>
> Maybe I will find a new syntax for register_converter that allows the 
> alias to be optional.  Also, for now , the third argument to 
>  register_converter must be a Maxima lambda form. I think I can insert 
> a few lines of code and allow the last argument to be a Maxima 
> function.  Maybe I'll try to do that too.
>
> --Barton
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Why can't Maxima solve 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2) symbolically? PEBCAK or a limitation?

[Matthias A. S. <mat...@we...>]

Dear Barton,

Thanks for your spot-on comments, which I tried to apply in v1.0.2. I’ve attached the file below. Here's what it does. 

(%i1)  kill(all)$
(%i1)  load("all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.2.mac")$

(%i2)  eq1: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2)$
(%i3)  sols1: all_solutions(eq1, x)$
(%i4)  real(eq1, x);
(%o4) x=-(2/3)
(%i5)  complex(eq1, x);
(%o5) x=-((2*i*π*k)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3
(%i6)  complex_report(eq1, x);
(%o6) [x=-((2*i*π*k+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(3*log (7)-3*log (5))),x=-((2*i*π*k)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3]
  
(%i7)  eq2: 5^(3*k+2) = 7^(2*k+2)$
(%i8)  sols2: all_solutions(eq2, k)$
(%i9)  real_solution(eq2, k);
(%o9) k=-((2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i10)  complex(eq2, k);
(%o10) k=-((2*i*π*kk+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i11)  complex_report(5^(3*k+2) = 7^(3*k+2), k);
%o11) [k=-((2*i*π*kk+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(3*log (7)-3*log (5))),k=-((2*i*π*kk)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3]
  
(%i12)  eq3: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(2*x+1)$
(%i13)  sols3: all_solutions(eq3, x)$
(%i14)  real_solution(eq3, x);
(%o14) x=-((log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i15)  complex_solution(eq3, x);
(%o15) x=-((2*i*π*k+log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i16)  complex_report(eq3, x);
(%o16) x=-((2*i*π*k+log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))

(%i17)  complex(5^(3*x+2) + 1 = 7^(3*x+2), x);
#0: all_solutions_k(eq=5^(3*x+2)+1 = 7^(3*x+2),x=x,ksym=k) (all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.2.mac line 95)
#1: all_solutions(eq=5^(3*x+2)+1 = 7^(3*x+2),x=x) (all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.2.mac line 121)
#2: complex_solution(eq=5^(3*x+2)+1 = 7^(3*x+2),x=x) (all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.2.mac line 141)
all_solutions: expected LHS to be a power a^u. Got LHS =  5^(3*x+2)+1
 -- an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true);
 
(%i18)  try_complex(5^(3*x+2) + 1 = 7^(3*x+2), x);
all_solutions: expected LHS to be a power a^u. Got LHS =  5^(3*x+2)+1
(%o18) unsolved

Any suggestions or comments are more than welcome.

Cheers, Tilda




> Am 04.03.2026 um 16:03 schrieb Barton Willis <wi...@un...>:
> 
> I tried the code in  all_exp_eq_solutions_v0.2.6.mac. Some comments:
> 
> When the solve variable is k, the result is an expression that has k with two meanings:
>  
> (%i7) complex(5^(3*k+2) = 7^(3*k+2),k);
> (%o7) k=-((2*%i*%pi*k)/(3*log(7/5)))-2/3
> 
> When the base of the exponential isn't a constant, the result isn't wrong, but the equation isn't solved:
> 
> (%i8) complex(x^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2),x);
> (%o8) x=-((2*%i*%pi*k)/(3*log(7/x)))-2/3
> 
> The code assumes a very specific set of equations;  when  it isn't, the user gets a hard to understand error message:
> 
> (%i11)      complex(5^(3*x+2) + 1 = 7^(3*x+2),x);
> pow_parts: expected a power a^e, got:  5^(3*x+2)+1
> 
> The function complex_report  uses simp as a local variable. But simp is a Maxima option variable—when it is false, Maxima doesn't simplify expressions, and much of Maxima will not work as expected.  Likely, you should name this local variable something else. 
> 
> I hope these comments might help make your code better -- please keep us up on your efforts.
> 
> --Barton

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Another solve toughie

[Raymond T. <toy...@gm...>]

On 3/4/26 1:52 PM, Richard Fateman wrote:

> solve( y =  (sqrt(4*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))/(sqrt(9*x+1)-sqrt(x+1)) , x);
>
> a solution is x= -((4*(y-1)*y*(8*y-3))/((2*y-1)*(2*y+3)*(4*y-3)*(4*y+1)))
|to_poly_solve| produces an answer after a bit of time. It's really 
messy, so I'm not pasting it here. But it does, after calling |factor|, 
produce the same answer as you give, with lots of conditions on the 
value of y.
>
> a challenge might also be:  prove that
> f(x) := if x=0 then 3/8 else 
> (sqrt(4*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))/(sqrt(9*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))
> is continuous everywhere.
How can that be true? sqrt(x+1) isn't continuous everywhere for real x.
​

[Maxima-discuss] Another solve toughie

[Richard F. <fa...@gm...>]

solve( y =  (sqrt(4*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))/(sqrt(9*x+1)-sqrt(x+1)) , x);

a solution is x= -((4*(y-1)*y*(8*y-3))/((2*y-1)*(2*y+3)*(4*y-3)*(4*y+1)))

a challenge might also be:  prove that
f(x) := if x=0 then 3/8 else
(sqrt(4*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))/(sqrt(9*x+1)-sqrt(x+1))
is continuous everywhere.


RJF

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Why can't Maxima solve 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2) symbolically? PEBCAK or a limitation?

[Barton W. <wi...@un...>]

I tried the code in  all_exp_eq_solutions_v0.2.6.mac. Some comments:

When the solve variable is k, the result is an expression that has k with two meanings:

(%i7) complex(5^(3*k+2) = 7^(3*k+2),k);
(%o7) k=-((2*%i*%pi*k)/(3*log(7/5)))-2/3

When the base of the exponential isn't a constant, the result isn't wrong, but the equation isn't solved:

(%i8) complex(x^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2),x);
(%o8) x=-((2*%i*%pi*k)/(3*log(7/x)))-2/3

The code assumes a very specific set of equations;  when  it isn't, the user gets a hard to understand error message:

(%i11)      complex(5^(3*x+2) + 1 = 7^(3*x+2),x);
pow_parts: expected a power a^e, got:  5^(3*x+2)+1

The function complex_report  uses simp as a local variable. But simp is a Maxima option variable—when it is false, Maxima doesn't simplify expressions, and much of Maxima will not work as expected.  Likely, you should name this local variable something else.

I hope these comments might help make your code better -- please keep us up on your efforts.

--Barton

________________________________
From: Barton Willis via Maxima-discuss <max...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:54 PM
To: Karen Kharatian <kar...@gm...>; Max...@li... <max...@li...>; Matthias A. Steiner <mat...@we...>
Subject: Re: [Maxima-discuss] Why can't Maxima solve 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2) symbolically? PEBCAK or a limitation?

Caution: Non-NU Email

Here is my solution—I'll look at your solution in a bit.  To try this for yourself,  you'll need a recent version of function_convert<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/barton-willis/function_convert__;!!PvXuogZ4sRB2p-tU!FMbrqH-YRvzrsX9h2sfSEN4n_9x5027ib_10GK__W-SCVelqq8OEGnrkFdP3yeN-HBmfQSgppbdwlBiTA_FmWiv3UaVestz-Fw$>

(%i1) load(function_convert)$

Define a converter that standardizes the base of an exponential to %e.   The repeated "^" = standardize_base looks weird --- the second is an alias for the first:

(%i2) register_converter("^" = standardize_base, "^" = standardize_base, lambda([a,b], exp(b*log(a))));
(%o2) done

Standardize the base to %e:

(%i3) eq1: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2)$

(%i4) eq2 : function_convert("^" = standardize_base, eq1);
(eq2) %e^(log(5)*(3*x+2))=%e^(log(7)*(3*x+2))

And solve with to_poly_solve:

(%i5) load(to_poly_solve)$

(%i8) sol : %solve(eq2,x);
(sol) %union([x=-((2*%i*%pi*%z927+log(49/25))/log(343/125))])

Reset the pesky counter to zero:

(%i9) sol : nicedummies(sol);
(sol) %union([x=-((2*%i*%pi*%z0+log(49/25))/log(343/125))])

Let's find a real solution --- we need to use carbon-based computing (our brains) to see that we need to set %z0 to zero:

(%i10)      solX : subst(%z0=0,sol);
(solX)      %union([x=-(log(49/25)/log(343/125))])

Let's check --- always check:

(%i11)      subst(first(solX),eq1);
(%o11)      5^(2-(3*log(49/25))/log(343/125))=7^(2-(3*log(49/25))/log(343/125))

(%i12)      radcan(%);
(%o12)      1=1

There are light-weight methods to standardize the base to %e, using function_convert isn't needed.  Something like  subst("^"  =  lambda([a,b], exp(b*log(a)), xxx)) will work.

Maybe I will find a new syntax for register_converter that allows the alias to be optional.  Also, for now , the third argument to  register_converter must be a Maxima lambda form. I think I can insert a few lines of code and allow the last argument to be a Maxima function.  Maybe I'll try to do that too.

--Barton

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Why can't Maxima solve 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2) symbolically? PEBCAK or a limitation?

[Barton W. <wi...@un...>]

Here is my solution—I'll look at your solution in a bit.  To try this for yourself,  you'll need a recent version of function_convert<https://github.com/barton-willis/function_convert>

(%i1) load(function_convert)$

Define a converter that standardizes the base of an exponential to %e.   The repeated "^" = standardize_base looks weird --- the second is an alias for the first:

(%i2) register_converter("^" = standardize_base, "^" = standardize_base, lambda([a,b], exp(b*log(a))));
(%o2) done

Standardize the base to %e:

(%i3) eq1: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2)$

(%i4) eq2 : function_convert("^" = standardize_base, eq1);
(eq2) %e^(log(5)*(3*x+2))=%e^(log(7)*(3*x+2))

And solve with to_poly_solve:

(%i5) load(to_poly_solve)$

(%i8) sol : %solve(eq2,x);
(sol) %union([x=-((2*%i*%pi*%z927+log(49/25))/log(343/125))])

Reset the pesky counter to zero:

(%i9) sol : nicedummies(sol);
(sol) %union([x=-((2*%i*%pi*%z0+log(49/25))/log(343/125))])

Let's find a real solution --- we need to use carbon-based computing (our brains) to see that we need to set %z0 to zero:

(%i10)      solX : subst(%z0=0,sol);
(solX)      %union([x=-(log(49/25)/log(343/125))])

Let's check --- always check:

(%i11)      subst(first(solX),eq1);
(%o11)      5^(2-(3*log(49/25))/log(343/125))=7^(2-(3*log(49/25))/log(343/125))

(%i12)      radcan(%);
(%o12)      1=1

There are light-weight methods to standardize the base to %e, using function_convert isn't needed.  Something like  subst("^"  =  lambda([a,b], exp(b*log(a)), xxx)) will work.

Maybe I will find a new syntax for register_converter that allows the alias to be optional.  Also, for now , the third argument to  register_converter must be a Maxima lambda form. I think I can insert a few lines of code and allow the last argument to be a Maxima function.  Maybe I'll try to do that too.

--Barton

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Why can't Maxima solve 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2) symbolically? PEBCAK or a limitation?

[Matthias A. S. <mat...@we...>]

Picking up Eduardo’s idea (https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/59300108/), I wrote, admittedly with the help of AI, a symbolic wrapper around the logarithmic lifting

	a^{u(x)} = b^{v(x)}
	u(x)\log a - v(x)\log b = 2\pi i k

which Maxima fails to expose automatically. I’ve attached the file below, and here is what the program does on two exponential equations.
 
(%i1)  kill(all)$
(%i1)  load("all_exp_eq_solutions_v1.0.0.mac")$

(%i2)  eq1: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(3*x+2)$
(%i3)  sols1: all_solutions(eq1, x)$
(%i4)  real(eq1, x);
(%o4) x=-(2/3)
(%i5)  complex_report(eq1, x);
(%o5) [x=-((2*i*π*k+2*log (7)-2*log (5))/(3*log (7)-3*log (5))),x=-((2*i*π*k)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3]
(%i6)  complex(eq1, x);
(%o6) x=-((2*i*π*k)/(3*log (7/5)))-2/3

(%i7)  eq2: 5^(3*x+2) = 7^(2*x+1)$
(%i8)  sols2: all_solutions(eq2, x)$
(%i9)  real_solution(eq2, x);
(%o9) x=-((log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))
(%i10)  complex_report(eq2, x);
(%o10) x=-((2*i*π*k+log (7)-2*log (5))/(2*log (7)-3*log (5)))

I’m sure there’s room for improvement on the code level.  As Maxima quite often returns equations unsolved, where other CAS like Maple’s solve(eq1,x) or SolveTools:-ComplexSolve({eq1}) return solutions, this wrapper could serve as a starting point for a planned “Maxima equation toolkit” in the absence of a reduce() function in Maxima.

Cheers, Tilda



Re: [Maxima-discuss] MCP server

[Matthias K. <mk...@uc...>]

Probably easy to do using existing Python interfaces to Maxima.
https://pypi.org/project/passagemath-maxima/

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 11:38 AM Dimiter Prodanov <dim...@gm...> wrote:
>
> I am interested but how can we implement it?
> Dimiter
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 6:21 PM Richard Fateman <fa...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone looking at hooking up maxima to AI via MCP?
>> There's a Mathematica one as a model ..
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Maxima-discuss mailing list
>> Max...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss



-- 
Matthias Koeppe -- http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~mkoeppe

Re: [Maxima-discuss] MCP server

[Dimiter P. <dim...@gm...>]

I am interested but how can we implement it?
Dimiter

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 6:21 PM Richard Fateman <fa...@gm...> wrote:

> Anyone looking at hooking up maxima to AI via MCP?
> There's a Mathematica one as a model ..
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] gnuplot_def.lisp

[Leo B. <Leo...@um...>]

Thanks, Jaime.

Leo

On Tue, Mar 03 2026, Jaime Villate <vi...@fe...> wrote:

> Hello Leo,
>
> You are right; I have fixed it with commit [74917f].
>
> I introduced that error because one of the uses of gnuplot_view_args
> was a workaround for a bug in  very old versions of Gnuplot, which is
> no longer necessary in Gnuplot 5 or 6. However, since there are other
> possible uses for gnuplot_view_args, that option should be kept.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jaime
>
> On 1/26/26 18:20, Leo Butler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On line 777 of src/gnuplot_def.lisp, we have:
>>
>>               ($system $gnuplot_command "-persist"
>>
>> Should that not be:
>>
>>               ($system $gnuplot_command $gnuplot_view_args
>>
>> ?
>>
>> The only plot documentation that mentions the Gnuplot command-line
>> option "-persist" is that for `gnuplot_view_args'.
>>
>> Leo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Maxima-discuss mailing list
>> Max...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss

[Maxima-discuss] MCP server

[Richard F. <fa...@gm...>]

Anyone looking at hooking up maxima to AI via MCP?
There's a Mathematica one as a model ..

Re: [Maxima-discuss] GCL pathname bug

[Camm M. <ca...@ma...>]

Greetings!  This one is a maxima bug -- wna-err should read

(defun wna-err (exprs &optional required-arg-count pretty-name)
  (if required-arg-count
      (let* ((op (or pretty-name (caar exprs)))
	     (actual-count (length (rest exprs))))
	(merror (intl:gettext "~M: expected exactly ~M arguments but got ~M: ~M")
		op required-arg-count actual-count (list* '(mlist) (rest exprs))))
      (merror (intl:gettext "~:@M: wrong number of arguments.")
	      exprs)))

if it is to accespt a symbol in exprs.  With this, gcl 2.6 gives the
following testsuite results:

Error summary:
Error(s) found:
  /home/camm/maxima-5.49.0+dsfg/tests/rtest5.mac problems:
    (80 82 83)
  /home/camm/maxima-5.49.0+dsfg/share/stringproc/rtestprintf.mac problems:
    (29 48)
  /home/camm/maxima-5.49.0+dsfg/share/to_poly_solve/rtest_to_poly_solve.mac problem:
    (212)
Tests that were expected to fail but passed:
  /home/camm/maxima-5.49.0+dsfg/share/simplification/rtest_facexp.mac problem:
    (37)
6 tests failed out of 19,396 total tests.
real time       :    950.600 secs
run-gbc time    :    253.150 secs
child run time  :    393.750 secs
gbc time        :    289.790 secs
(%o0)                                done

Take care,



Leo Butler <Leo...@um...> writes:

> Hello again,
>
> I wrote too soon. While the patch enables the build process, there is a
> problem with the testsuite (I re-ran the failure by itself):
>
> #+begin_example
> *************************** rtest15.mac: Problem 274 **************************
>
> Input:
> errcatch(push(2014))
>
> Unrecoverable error: Segmentation violation..
> Aborted                    ../maxima-local --lisp=gcl --batch-string='batch("rtest15.mac",test);'
> #+end_example
>
> On the other hand, Maxima installed from debian testing does complete
> that test (albeit with 29 non-fatal errors).
>
> Best regards,
> Leo
>
> On Mon, Mar 02 2026, Camm Maguire <ca...@ma...> wrote:
>
>> Greetings, and thanks so much for your report!  I see you are using
>> 2.6.14, and I apologize for having focused solely on current 2.7.1 and
>> forthcoming 2.7.2.  I do want to support the 2.6 series builds for at
>> least a while longer, so I appreciate the report.
>>
>> This patch should fix things for you.  I will be releasing this as a
>> Debian package, and a final 2.6.15 to end the 2.6 series relatively
>> soon.
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> =============================================================================
>> (in-package :compiler)
>> (defun c2gethash (args)
>>   (cond ((member *value-to-go* '(top return))
>> 	 (let* ((nargs (inline-args args '(t t t)))
>> 		(base *vs*)(*vs* *vs*)
>> 		(r (cdr (vs-push)))(f (cdr (vs-push))))
>> 	   (wt-nl "{ struct htent *_z=gethash" (if *safe-compile* "_with_check" "") "(" (car nargs) "," (cadr nargs) ");")
>> 	   (wt-nl "if (_z->hte_key==OBJNULL) {")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" r "]=" (caddr nargs) ";")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" f "]=Cnil;")
>> 	   (wt-nl "} else {")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" r "]=_z->hte_value;")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" f "]=Ct;")
>> 	   (wt-nl "}}")
>> 	   (wt-nl "vs_top=(vs_base=base+" base ")+" (- *vs* base) ";")
>> 	   (unwind-exit 'fun-val nil (cons 'values 2))
>> 	   (close-inline-blocks)))
>> 	((let ((*inline-blocks* 0)
>> 	       (*restore-avma*  *restore-avma*)
>> 	       (fd `((t t t) t #.(flags rfa) 
>> 		     ,(concatenate 'string
>> 				   "({struct htent *_z=gethash"
>> 				   (if *safe-compile* "_with_check" "")
>> 				   "(#0,#1);_z->hte_key==OBJNULL ? (#2) : _z->hte_value;})")))) 
>> 	   (save-avma fd)
>> 	   (unwind-exit (get-inline-loc fd args))
>> 	   (close-inline-blocks)))))
>> =============================================================================           
>>
>> Leo Butler <Leo...@um...> writes:
>>
>>> Camm,
>>>
>>> Attached is the complete output from an attempt to build Maxima with 4
>>> lisps from this morning.
>>>
>>> At line 28291, you will see the initial error that I posted. There are,
>>> I believe, several thousand lines of repetitive errors/warnings above
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Leo
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
Camm Maguire			     		    ca...@ma...
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

Re: [Maxima-discuss] GCL pathname bug

[Camm M. <ca...@ma...>]

Greetings!

Thanks for the testuite report using gcl 2.6.  I will investigate and
get back to you.

As for maxima 5.49.0+dsfg-3 set to propagate to debian testing alongside
gcl27, I get the following testsuite results:

No unexpected errors found out of 19,396 tests.
Tests that were expected to fail but passed:
  /build/reproducible-path/maxima-5.49.0+dsfg/tests/rtest_signum.mac problems:
    (78 79)
  /build/reproducible-path/maxima-5.49.0+dsfg/share/simplification/rtest_facexp.mac problem:
    (37)

https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=maxima

Take care,

Leo Butler <Leo...@um...> writes:

> Hello again,
>
> I wrote too soon. While the patch enables the build process, there is a
> problem with the testsuite (I re-ran the failure by itself):
>
> #+begin_example
> *************************** rtest15.mac: Problem 274 **************************
>
> Input:
> errcatch(push(2014))
>
> Unrecoverable error: Segmentation violation..
> Aborted                    ../maxima-local --lisp=gcl --batch-string='batch("rtest15.mac",test);'
> #+end_example
>
> On the other hand, Maxima installed from debian testing does complete
> that test (albeit with 29 non-fatal errors).
>
> Best regards,
> Leo
>
> On Mon, Mar 02 2026, Camm Maguire <ca...@ma...> wrote:
>
>> Greetings, and thanks so much for your report!  I see you are using
>> 2.6.14, and I apologize for having focused solely on current 2.7.1 and
>> forthcoming 2.7.2.  I do want to support the 2.6 series builds for at
>> least a while longer, so I appreciate the report.
>>
>> This patch should fix things for you.  I will be releasing this as a
>> Debian package, and a final 2.6.15 to end the 2.6 series relatively
>> soon.
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> =============================================================================
>> (in-package :compiler)
>> (defun c2gethash (args)
>>   (cond ((member *value-to-go* '(top return))
>> 	 (let* ((nargs (inline-args args '(t t t)))
>> 		(base *vs*)(*vs* *vs*)
>> 		(r (cdr (vs-push)))(f (cdr (vs-push))))
>> 	   (wt-nl "{ struct htent *_z=gethash" (if *safe-compile* "_with_check" "") "(" (car nargs) "," (cadr nargs) ");")
>> 	   (wt-nl "if (_z->hte_key==OBJNULL) {")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" r "]=" (caddr nargs) ";")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" f "]=Cnil;")
>> 	   (wt-nl "} else {")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" r "]=_z->hte_value;")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" f "]=Ct;")
>> 	   (wt-nl "}}")
>> 	   (wt-nl "vs_top=(vs_base=base+" base ")+" (- *vs* base) ";")
>> 	   (unwind-exit 'fun-val nil (cons 'values 2))
>> 	   (close-inline-blocks)))
>> 	((let ((*inline-blocks* 0)
>> 	       (*restore-avma*  *restore-avma*)
>> 	       (fd `((t t t) t #.(flags rfa) 
>> 		     ,(concatenate 'string
>> 				   "({struct htent *_z=gethash"
>> 				   (if *safe-compile* "_with_check" "")
>> 				   "(#0,#1);_z->hte_key==OBJNULL ? (#2) : _z->hte_value;})")))) 
>> 	   (save-avma fd)
>> 	   (unwind-exit (get-inline-loc fd args))
>> 	   (close-inline-blocks)))))
>> =============================================================================           
>>
>> Leo Butler <Leo...@um...> writes:
>>
>>> Camm,
>>>
>>> Attached is the complete output from an attempt to build Maxima with 4
>>> lisps from this morning.
>>>
>>> At line 28291, you will see the initial error that I posted. There are,
>>> I believe, several thousand lines of repetitive errors/warnings above
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Leo
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
Camm Maguire			     		    ca...@ma...
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

Re: [Maxima-discuss] GCL pathname bug

[Camm M. <ca...@ma...>]

Greetings!

There are two gcl flavors currently in debian testing:

gcl --   currently Version_2_6_15pre
gcl27 -- currently Version_2_7_2pre

maxima builds using gcl27 automatically, but at least for a while I
would like to have it build with both.

The latest gcl27 C23 support should hit debian testing today or
tomorrow: 

https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=gcl27

I would like to push out the official tarballs of 2.6.15 and 2.7.2 to
the gnu site sometime in the next few weeks.  The principal release goal
for 2.7.2 was mac os arm support, which is strictly C23, and should work
now, but I cannot yet confirm myself as I still have no access to such a
machine.  A volunteer has arisen to offer one, but this is still in
progress.

Take care,


Leo Butler <Leo...@um...> writes:

> Hi Camm,
>
> Thank you for the patch. I applied it during the build process for
> Maxima+GCL and it completed successfully.
>
> Do you have an ETA for the release of 2.6.15 ? or for 2.7.1 to land in
> debian testing.
>
> I am just using the stock GCL package for testing, so I was surprised to
> see that the Maxima package works fine, but one cannot build Maxima
> using the GCL in testing.
>
> Best regards,
> Leo
>
> On Mon, Mar 02 2026, Camm Maguire <ca...@ma...> wrote:
>
>> Greetings, and thanks so much for your report!  I see you are using
>> 2.6.14, and I apologize for having focused solely on current 2.7.1 and
>> forthcoming 2.7.2.  I do want to support the 2.6 series builds for at
>> least a while longer, so I appreciate the report.
>>
>> This patch should fix things for you.  I will be releasing this as a
>> Debian package, and a final 2.6.15 to end the 2.6 series relatively
>> soon.
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> =============================================================================
>> (in-package :compiler)
>> (defun c2gethash (args)
>>   (cond ((member *value-to-go* '(top return))
>> 	 (let* ((nargs (inline-args args '(t t t)))
>> 		(base *vs*)(*vs* *vs*)
>> 		(r (cdr (vs-push)))(f (cdr (vs-push))))
>> 	   (wt-nl "{ struct htent *_z=gethash" (if *safe-compile* "_with_check" "") "(" (car nargs) "," (cadr nargs) ");")
>> 	   (wt-nl "if (_z->hte_key==OBJNULL) {")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" r "]=" (caddr nargs) ";")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" f "]=Cnil;")
>> 	   (wt-nl "} else {")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" r "]=_z->hte_value;")
>> 	   (wt-nl "base[" f "]=Ct;")
>> 	   (wt-nl "}}")
>> 	   (wt-nl "vs_top=(vs_base=base+" base ")+" (- *vs* base) ";")
>> 	   (unwind-exit 'fun-val nil (cons 'values 2))
>> 	   (close-inline-blocks)))
>> 	((let ((*inline-blocks* 0)
>> 	       (*restore-avma*  *restore-avma*)
>> 	       (fd `((t t t) t #.(flags rfa) 
>> 		     ,(concatenate 'string
>> 				   "({struct htent *_z=gethash"
>> 				   (if *safe-compile* "_with_check" "")
>> 				   "(#0,#1);_z->hte_key==OBJNULL ? (#2) : _z->hte_value;})")))) 
>> 	   (save-avma fd)
>> 	   (unwind-exit (get-inline-loc fd args))
>> 	   (close-inline-blocks)))))
>> =============================================================================           
>>
>> Leo Butler <Leo...@um...> writes:
>>
>>> Camm,
>>>
>>> Attached is the complete output from an attempt to build Maxima with 4
>>> lisps from this morning.
>>>
>>> At line 28291, you will see the initial error that I posted. There are,
>>> I believe, several thousand lines of repetitive errors/warnings above
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Leo
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
Camm Maguire			     		    ca...@ma...
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah