I am not aware specifically of the methods used in FriCAS. It is possible, I suppose, that given an expression it immediately tries to find an appropriate differential field and begins some version of the Risch "algorithm" (which actually fails to be an algorithm for various reasons), and doesn't use the usual methods first.
Since a huge percentage of integration problems (Like 90 percent of textbook problems) can be done by the "derivative divides" method, that takes about a page of code, and is almost instantaneous, I would be surprised if this is not used by FriCAS. But as I said, it is possible that FriCAS doesn't do this. As for the paper being a fraud, I do not know* for sure* what the authors did, just a suspicion. And they may just be well-intentioned, but naive. see the quote above.. I think you might find that much of the literature in AI describes the results in an overly self-serving mode. It is probably worse than science literature generally, but even that has been getting some bad press about results that are not reproducible. One would hope that computer science software results would be more generally reproducible, but that depends on the software being made available. RJF On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:10:20 AM UTC-7, Martin R wrote: > > >>> Are you saying that FriCAS is the only CAS which doesn't do this? >>> >> >> AFAICT, FriCAS dos this also... >> >> I don't think so - are you sure? Neither do I not know the Risch > algorithm nor FriCAS' implementation of it too well, but I would have > thought that FriCAS doesn't do pattern matching in the sense described > above. > > Martin > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0594a4b6-fb45-4505-b0b3-146dd61732d6%40googlegroups.com.
