Changes http://page.axiom-developer.org/zope/mathaction/WishList/diff --
++added: David Mentré added: I believe there's a better, faster, more complete choice than Octave. It is called Scilab, and it was developed by the French INRIA (Institute Nationale De Recherche en Informatique et Automation, IIRC), and it is in ongoing development, is very complete (even has a simulation kit). It is also Open Source. Octave pales in comparison as somewhat of a "toy." http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/ For reference: on scilab.org web site, FAQ section: Q6. Is Scilab license GPL-compatible? According to the Free Software Foundation, Scilab is not a free software. See http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense. Q1. What does the Scilab license mean? * Scilab license allows you to: ** use freely Scilab for non commercial use ** use freely Scilab for commercial use if you do not use it as a derived software (ie a modified Scilab) or a composite software (ie Scilab included in another software). * Scilab license forbids you to: ** use a composite or derived version of Scilab for commercial uses without asking INRIA authorization. ++added: Update: Meanwhile Renaud provided his [CylindricalAlgebraicDecomposition] package, which solves this item partially. ??changed: - See ProgrammingAxiom See ProgrammingAxiom. This is nearly done, except of Issue 219TheInterpreterDoesNotUnderstandDependendTypes ??changed: - Update: To get things started, I implemented an operator that represents recurrences. Look at - RecurrenceRelationOperator. Update: To get things started, I implemented an operator that represents recurrences. Look at RecurrenceRelationOperator. ??changed: - Graphics should be programmable, interactive, suitable for publication. Mathematica gained much of its popularity because it was early to get - the visualization right (almost, at least). Graphics should be programmable, interactive, suitable for publication. Mathematica gained much of its popularity because it was early to get the visualization right (almost, at least). ??changed: - Although a naive implementation is available now, it would be great if someone could implement a more sophisticated algorithm. I provided some - pointers at the above page. - -From unknown Wed Aug 17 21:11:58 -0500 2005 -From: unknown -Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:11:58 -0500 -Subject: Avoid Octave use Scilab -Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - -I believe there's a better, faster, more complete choice than Octave. It is called Scilab, and it was developed by the French INRIA (Institute Nationale De Recherche en Informatique et Automation, IIRC), and it is in ongoing development, is very complete (even has a simulation kit). -It is also Open Source. Octave pales in comparison as somewhat of a "toy." - - -http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/ - - Although a naive implementation is available now, it would be great if someone could implement a more sophisticated algorithm. I provided some pointers at the above page. Update: This item can be regarded as done. I implemented two different algorithms, the faster one being due to Beckermann and Labahn. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to finish this package right now, since some tricky issues remain. A preliminary version can be obtained by posting to axiom-math. - Limits The LIMITPS package is outdated. We should implement the MRV algorithm described in "On Computing Limits in a Symbolic Manipulation System, Dominik Gruntz. ETH Diss 11432, 1996." which can be obtained from http://www.cs.fh-aargau.ch/~gruntz/publications2.html Somehow sad, since the algorithm in Axiom is quite elaborate, while Gruntz's algorithm seems to be much shorter. It is in fact implemented in MuPAD. --removed: - -- forwarded from http://page.axiom-developer.org/zope/mathaction/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
