## reduce-algebra-developers — Discussion of development, administration and support for Reduce

You can subscribe to this list here.

 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Jan (2) Feb (5) Mar Apr May (2) Jun (8) Jul (4) Aug Sep Oct (2) Nov (6) Dec Jan (1) Feb (1) Mar (3) Apr (2) May (2) Jun (2) Jul (18) Aug (13) Sep (7) Oct Nov Dec (2) Jan Feb (11) Mar Apr (4) May Jun (1) Jul (18) Aug (16) Sep (12) Oct (12) Nov (19) Dec (42) Jan (16) Feb (3) Mar (8) Apr (14) May (30) Jun (5) Jul (7) Aug (3) Sep (10) Oct (4) Nov (10) Dec (1) Jan (14) Feb (8) Mar (5) Apr (3) May (9) Jun (19) Jul Aug (27) Sep (5) Oct (18) Nov (12) Dec (8) Jan (5) Feb (8) Mar (20) Apr (22) May (28) Jun (9) Jul (6) Aug (46) Sep (40) Oct (15) Nov (8) Dec (34) Jan (20) Feb (15) Mar (18) Apr (20) May (3) Jun (13) Jul (10) Aug (19) Sep (8) Oct (31) Nov (26) Dec (13) Jan (13) Feb (4) Mar (14) Apr (28) May (19) Jun (7) Jul (1) Aug Sep (19) Oct (5) Nov (4) Dec (9) Jan (4) Feb (30) Mar Apr (5) May (1) Jun (1) Jul (3) Aug (2) Sep (11) Oct (1) Nov Dec
S M T W T F S

1

2

3

4

5

6
(1)
7

8

9

10

11

12
(5)
13
(7)
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31
(1)

Showing 5 results of 5

 Re: [Reduce-algebra-developers] Bug in definite integration? From: Arthur Norman - 2013-01-12 20:42:52 ```I see bad things happening when indefint2 and transf and defint_choose get activated. Furthermore I can trim the bad case down even further to int(3*(x^2-x), x, 0, 1); int((x^2-x)*3, x, 0, 1); but right now I do not understand what defint_choose and friends are trying to do. But it seems to be of the essence that there is a subtraction there in x^2-x. Hahaha int(2*(x-a), x, 0, 1); yields zero incorrectly. int(1*(x-a), x, 0, 1) yields an answer that contains the "indefint2" operator, as does int((2/3)*(x-a), x, p, q); So something there is well messed up! Arthur ```
 Re: [Reduce-algebra-developers] a question about installation From: Arthur Norman - 2013-01-12 20:27:00 ```On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, richard fell wrote: > This question is so basic I am embarrassed to ask. But ask I must. I am > trying to install reduce on 64 bit Linux Fedora 16?. What package is the > correct to install? > Many thanks for your time, > Dick Fell > > From the installation instructions > The safest way to be up to date with Reduce is to use "subversion" to fetch full sources, eg using the command "svn checkout svn://svn.code.sf.net/p/reduce-algebra/code/trunk reduce" [as per the "code" tag at sourceforge] Then in the reduce directory you have just made you go either ./configure --with-csl OR ./configure --with-psl followed by make and you then go and grab coffee while it builds. If you go through the pain of getting that to work once you can then bring your version fully up to date at any time using "svn update" and going "make" again, and the re-fetches and re-builds are liable to be way cheaper than the first time. We have not put up a ready-built binary for some while. It is rather probable that one of the ines labelled "Ubuntu" will in fact work on Fedora. There has been a pile of work that will lead to us generating both .deb and .rpm files that package things nicely, but the resulting binaries are not up there yet - in part because those of us who have been working on Reduce have not quite done enough testing on them and need to get out act together on the protocol we use to decide when a version is stable enough to put out as a "release". Your message may help us to get our act together on that front! Arthur ```
 [Reduce-algebra-developers] a question about installation From: richard fell - 2013-01-12 19:52:50 ```This question is so basic I am embarrassed to ask. But ask I must. I am trying to install reduce on 64 bit Linux Fedora 16?. What package is the correct to install? Many thanks for your time, Dick Fell From the installation instructions -- Richard Noel Fell Fisher School of Physics Brandeis University Waltham, Ma 02454 ```
 Re: [Reduce-algebra-developers] Bug in definite integration? From: Arthur Norman - 2013-01-12 16:52:20 ```On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Дмитрий Гончаров wrote: > Results of calculating definite integrals is different in the case > below, nevertheless indefinite integrals and limits are the same. > Value of 12 is incorrect. Looks like a bug. > Any comments? Thanks for the very neatly presented and concise case, which indeed looks like a bug! The definite integration code has a load of quite elaborate pattern matching that is there to catch special cases where indefinite integration might fail, and my presumption is that one of the rules there has triggered when it should not. I observe that x*(4-(x-1)^2 fails while (4-(x-1)^2)*x behaves OK. When I do initial tracing of the code I observe it diving in through e.g. simpinteg that is code in packages/defint where the patterns and rewrites are. I have not just yet tracked which is the bad one! Arthur ```
 [Reduce-algebra-developers] Bug in definite integration? From: Дмитрий Гончаров - 2013-01-12 15:20:00 Attachments: REDUCEbug.jpg ```Results of calculating definite integrals is different in the case below, nevertheless indefinite integrals and limits are the same. Value of 12 is incorrect. Looks like a bug. Screenshot attached. Any comments? Thanks. D. ht:=4-(x-1)^2; 2 ht := - x + 2*x + 3 ht1:=x*ht; 2 ht1 := x*( - x + 2*x + 3) int(x*ht,x); 2 2 x *( - 3*x + 8*x + 18) ------------------------- 12 int(ht1,x); 2 2 x *( - 3*x + 8*x + 18) ------------------------- 12 int(x*ht,x,-1,3); 12 int(ht1,x,-1,3); 32 ---- 3 ```

Showing 5 results of 5