On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Francois Maltey wrote:
| Dear Gabriel,
|
| If you are looking in the interpreter is it possible to improve axion
| about anonymous functions :
|
| [t+k for k in 1..12] -- is right in axiom
| [(t+->t+k) for k in 1..12] -- I can't get 12 functions with 12 integers.
|
|
Dear Gabriel,
If you are looking in the interpreter is it possible to improve axion
about anonymous functions :
[t+k for k in 1..12] -- is right in axiom
[(t+->t+k) for k in 1..12] -- I can't get 12 functions with 12 integers.
[t +-> t+1, t +-> t+2] -- is well declared, but I
Dear Waldek,
Thanks a lot for your previous accurate reponse.
It seems you understand what I'm looking for,
and I hope understand how you want axiom computes.
> I want Axiom to produce mathematically correct results.
> [and use] algebraic interpretation otherwise we get wrong results.
> To
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > What is the difference between putting that definition in a file
| > and subsequently issueing )co
|
| The interpreter does not have the treewalking machinery to dynamically
| construct and use a category. The compiler does.
(1) But, they are no
> What is the difference between putting that definition in a file
> and subsequently issueing )co
The interpreter does not have the treewalking machinery to dynamically
construct and use a category. The compiler does.
t
___
Axiom-developer mailing l
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
| Concerning differences, a little one which probably has no useful
| justification: compiler accepts "until" keyword, but this keyword is
| absent in the interpreter.
I believe the interpreter uses the "new parser" (src/interp/cparse.boot)
where "until"
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Martin Rubey wrote:
| For example, I get
|
| (1) -> F: CoercibleTo OutputForm == add (Rep := Integer; coerce x ==
1::OutputForm)
|Internal Error
|Unexpected error in call to system function pf2Sex1
I know. That error is precisely why I asked the question.
What is t
Dear all,
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The interpreter (in particular pf2Sex) does not handle category
> definitions (with-expression).
This sounds as if the interpreter would allow the definition of new
domains. However, from my experience, this is not the case.
I believe
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> | In Axiom getting a "new" instance of an existing type is easy,
> | you just call the constructor.
>
> I'm sorry, that is bogus argument. Try )compile on a file that has
> category and domain definitions.
>
> | But to create
Hi Waldek and all !
> Actually, now I am convinced that there is no simple "real" formula
> giving correct branch cuts. Official Lisp formula for asin is
> asin x == -%i*log(%i*x+sqrt(1-x^2))
> The Lisp formula stays away from branch cuts of logarithm, and only
> branch cut of sqrt matters (an
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
| > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| >
| > | > The interpreter (in particular pf2Sex) does not handle category
| > | > definitions (with-expression). Is that by design or an "unfinished part"
| > |
| > | I'm not sure that it is possible to c
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | However, the problem with asin is just one special case. We
| > | would like to support many multivalued special functions (which in
| > | numerical version require branch cut
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> | > The interpreter (in particular pf2Sex) does not handle category
> | > definitions (with-expression). Is that by design or an "unfinished part"
> |
> | I'm not sure that it is possible to create categories at the
> | interpreter level. Well, in
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | However, the problem with asin is just one special case. We
> | would like to support many multivalued special functions (which in
> | numerical version require branch cuts). Tracking that we get
> | "correct" values on cuts
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > The interpreter (in particular pf2Sex) does not handle category
| > definitions (with-expression). Is that by design or an "unfinished part"
|
| I'm not sure that it is possible to create categories at the
| interpreter level. Well, in theory it is
> The interpreter (in particular pf2Sex) does not handle category
> definitions (with-expression). Is that by design or an "unfinished part"
I'm not sure that it is possible to create categories at the
interpreter level. Well, in theory it is since a category is
simply a lisp expression, but in pr
Scratchpad was a research project used by many people in
different ways. As such it was always a "work in progress".
Several people worked on "the new compiler" over time.
The original plan was to have the new compiler exist in
the lisp system. Stephen Watt decided to implement it in C
as a stand
Tim --
The interpreter (in particular pf2Sex) does not handle category
definitions (with-expression). Is that by design or an "unfinished" part?
In case it is by design, what is the rationale?
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-develo
I wrote:
> There is an easy workaround, put:
>
> asin x == -atan(-x/sqrt(1-x**2))
>
After further examination I have found that this does not work
(appearantly I was using different version for machine test, and
analysis shows that the formula above is wrong). Actually,
now I am convinced that
Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The problem here is that sin asin(7.0::COMPLEX FLOAT) give something
| close to -7. This is due to wrong bunch cuts during evaliation.
| Namely in trigcat we have:
|
| asin x == atan(x/sqrt(1-x**2))
|
| this formula for asin has wrong branch cuts. Wh
The problem here is that sin asin(7.0::COMPLEX FLOAT) give something
close to -7. This is due to wrong bunch cuts during evaliation.
Namely in trigcat we have:
asin x == atan(x/sqrt(1-x**2))
this formula for asin has wrong branch cuts. When x is real and bigger
then 1 sqrt(1-x**2) is imaginary w
Thanks for your comments about Fortress and Axiom.
I have seen older documents about Axiom, and you
have given me some new ideas to think about.
Yours,
Guy Steele
On Jan 16, 2007, at 2:08 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
One thought about parallelism is that you've implicitly
introduced a serial idea when
Hi,
I think, before 1990 someone wrote a new scratchpad compiler in
lisp. It seems that it was not better than the old one. So
the code was abandoned and the A#/Aldor compiler was developed
around 1990. Maybe Tim knows more details.
Regards
Juergen Weiss
Juergen Weiss | Universitaet Mainz,
"Weiss, Juergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| As far as I know, the nc functions are from the "New Compiler",
| which does not exist anymore. It should have replaced the old compiler,
| which is the current SPAD compiler. This does not mean, that the
| functions might be used somewhere :-(.
|
|
As far as I know, the nc functions are from the "New Compiler",
which does not exist anymore. It should have replaced the old compiler,
which is the current SPAD compiler. This does not mean, that the
functions might be used somewhere :-(.
Regards
Juergen Weiss
Juergen Weiss | Universitaet
25 matches
Mail list logo
