Stavros Macrakis

I agree that almost all of our users don't care and shouldn't care. There might be 0.1% of our users who care a lot because they know which algorithm is fastest or least likely to have a bug on their special huge case. Maybe we should have gcd:default mean "do what you think is best". That probably means algebraic:true as well. That way gcd(x^2-1,x-sqrt(2)) => x+sqrt(2), which I think is what most users expect.

This is the Maxima bug list. As I mentioned before, this is not the right place to ask questions about WxMaxima. I don't know anything about wxMaxima, including what files it uses. I have no idea what the typo "parf" means. You can get base Maxima to format expressions as TeX for "fancy" output, which you can then use however you want. tex('integrate(f(t),t,0,qq)*y) => $$\left(\int_{0}^{{\it qq}}{f\left(t\right)\;dt}\right)\,y$$

wxMaxima is a separate project from Maxima, and is not "essentially part of the same". WxMaxima uses Maxima as its computational core, but is a different codebase (in C++) hosted on a different git repo (github, not sourceforce, as I already pointed out) and has different maintainers. There are other front ends for Maxima, each of which has its own codebase and own maintainers, some of whom may contribute to Maxima as well. For example, GNU TeXmacs, Maxima-Jupyter, Xmaxima, Imaxima, SageMath, et...

This appears to be a wxMaxima bug, so please report it at https://github.com/wxMaxima-developers/wxmaxima/issues I suggest you give them a minimal example. If I have guessed correctly about what you're talking about, this shows the problem (see attachment): 'integrate(t,t,0,qq)*y;

Although it would be nice if manipulations returned things in the same form as their input, that isn't something that most of Maxima does. For example: integrate((2*x-3)^3,x) => 2*x^4-12*x^3+27*x^2-27*x but (2*x-3)^4/8 would preserve the input form.

Bizarrely, it seems to be the negation that is responsible for the problem: tt: subst(taylor(x,x,inf,2)$ subst(tt,x, %e^-(x+1)^2 ) => +(+%e^-1*(%e^-x)^2)*%e^-x^2 subst(tt,x, -%e^-(x+1)^2 ) => ERROR, only difference is initial "-" subst(tt,x, %e^-x^2 ) => +%e^-x^2 <<< OK subst(tt,x, -%e^-x^2 ) => -1+... <<< ???, only difference is initial "-" Even simpler case (getting 20 taylor terms to make sure it's not a truncation issue): subst(taylor(x,x,inf,20),x,exp(-x)) => +%e^-x subst(taylor(x,x,inf,20),x,-exp(-x))...

Bizarrely, it seems to be the negation that is responsible for the problem: tt: subst(taylor(x,x,inf,2)$ subst(tt,x, %e^-(x+1)^2 ) => +(+%e^-1*(%e^-x)^2)*%e^-x^2 subst(tt,x, -%e^-(x+1)^2 ) => ERROR, only difference is initial "-" subst(tt,x, %e^-x^2 ) => +%e^-x^2 <<< OK subst(tt,x, -%e^-x^2 ) => -1+... <<< ???, only difference is initial "-" Even simpler case (getting 20 taylor terms to make sure it's not a truncation issue): subst(taylor(x,x,inf,20),x,exp(-x)) => +%e^-x subst(taylor(x,x,inf,20),x,-exp(-x))...

Bizarrely, it seems to be the negation that is responsible for the problem: tt: subst(taylor(x,x,inf,2)$ subst(tt,x, %e^-(x+1)^2 ) => +(+%e^-1*(%e^-x)^2)*%e^-x^2 subst(tt,x, -%e^-(x+1)^2 ) => ERROR, only difference is initial "-" subst(tt,x, %e^-x^2 ) => +%e^-x^2 <<< OK subst(tt,x, -%e^-x^2 ) => -1+... <<< ???, only difference is initial "-" Tested in Maxima 5.49.0 SBCL 2.6.0