Thanks a lot for checking up on this, Robert!
This is now bug #2604950 in Maxima.
Stan
On Feb 13, 7:04 pm, Robert Dodier wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:09 am, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>
> > sage: sage: var('a b c')
> > (a, b, c)
> > sage: ((a*b - 0.5*a*(b - c))/a).simplify_radical()
> > 0
>
> I guess Sa
Robert Dodier wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:09 am, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>
>> sage: sage: var('a b c')
>> (a, b, c)
>> sage: ((a*b - 0.5*a*(b - c))/a).simplify_radical()
>> 0
>
> I guess Sage has keepfloat=true somewhere.
> That seems to trigger a bug in Maxima.
>
> (%i7) radcan ((a*b - 0.5*a*(b - c
On Feb 13, 2:09 am, Stan Schymanski wrote:
> sage: sage: var('a b c')
> (a, b, c)
> sage: ((a*b - 0.5*a*(b - c))/a).simplify_radical()
> 0
I guess Sage has keepfloat=true somewhere.
That seems to trigger a bug in Maxima.
(%i7) radcan ((a*b - 0.5*a*(b - c))/a), keepfloat=true;
(%o7) 0
(%i8) ra
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Robert Dodier wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 9:09 am, William Stein wrote:
>
>> In case nobody noticed, I'm not exactly a big fan of the Ma*'s. But
>> for whatever reason -- perhaps their purely selfish desire to make
>> money -- they do often try to listen to users and
On Feb 13, 9:09 am, William Stein wrote:
> In case nobody noticed, I'm not exactly a big fan of the Ma*'s. But
> for whatever reason -- perhaps their purely selfish desire to make
> money -- they do often try to listen to users and solve problems,
> instead of making excuses like some posters i
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:47 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Here are some things that the Ma*'s tend to do, which sometimes
>> academic math software projects don't:
>>
>> * listening to what users want
>>
>
> That's really not entirely
On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:47 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>
> Here are some things that the Ma*'s tend to do, which sometimes
> academic math software projects don't:
>
> * listening to what users want
>
That's really not entirely true. A simple example is that I know many
people who would like
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:35 AM, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2:30 am, Simon King wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Feb 13, 10:09 am, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>>
>> > rjf wrote:
>> > > If there is an algorithm for simplify_full(), then presumably it could
>> > > be programmed in Lisp, and incorporated
On Feb 13, 2:30 am, Simon King wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Feb 13, 10:09 am, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>
> > rjf wrote:
> > > If there is an algorithm for simplify_full(), then presumably it could
> > > be programmed in Lisp, and incorporated in Maxima.
>
> > > You are invited to do so.
>
> > > I ass
Hi all,
On Feb 13, 10:09 am, Stan Schymanski wrote:
> rjf wrote:
> > If there is an algorithm for simplify_full(), then presumably it could
> > be programmed in Lisp, and incorporated in Maxima.
>
> > You are invited to do so.
>
> > I assume that there are examples for which it doesn't do what y
Dear rjf,
rjf wrote:
> If there is an algorithm for simplify_full(), then presumably it could
> be programmed in Lisp, and incorporated in Maxima.
>
> You are invited to do so.
>
> I assume that there are examples for which it doesn't do what you
> want, and so you could argue that it should do m
> For the record, WeBWorK does not actually understand symbolic expressions,
> simplifications, etc. So how does it check that the student's messed-up
> unsimplified symbolic answer is "the same" as the hard-coded correct
> symbolic answer to the question? It evaluates both expressions numerical
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Still, I suppose that it would seem natural to check for the most
> common things of this kind like sin^2+cos^2. Even WeBWorK, a Perl
> homework checker, checks for this sort of thing in its (non-CAS-based)
> algorithm.
>
>
For the record, WeB
On Feb 12, 8:01 am, mabshoff wrote:
> On Feb 12, 7:50 am, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> .
>
> > At the very least we know Sage has its work cut out for it if it ever
> > wants to remove dependence on the slow-slow interface to Maxima and
> > Lisp issues, because these are (in general) very thorny que
On Feb 12, 7:50 am, kcrisman wrote:
> Oh, I don't think this is as much of a bug as people think - rjf was
> quite wise to ask what my command was!
>
> sage: t=var('t')
> sage: sqrt((-m*sin(m*t))^2+(n*cos(n*t))^2).nintegral(x,0,2*pi)
>
> where m, n were determined in an interact. But I used th
If there is an algorithm for simplify_full(), then presumably it could
be programmed in Lisp, and incorporated in Maxima.
You are invited to do so.
I assume that there are examples for which it doesn't do what you
want, and so you could argue that it should do more work.
I also assume there are
On Feb 11, 11:35 pm, boot...@u.washington.edu wrote:
> > Are you aware of the results of Daniel Richardson on the recursive
> > undecidability of
> > (rather simple) identities? He proved that in general there is no
> > algorithm possible.
>
> Yeah, and the halting problem is undecidable too, b
On Feb 12, 7:50 am, kcrisman wrote:
.
> At the very least we know Sage has its work cut out for it if it ever
> wants to remove dependence on the slow-slow interface to Maxima and
> Lisp issues, because these are (in general) very thorny questions.
> Even if they're amusing on occasion!
Yes,
Oh, I don't think this is as much of a bug as people think - rjf was
quite wise to ask what my command was!
sage: t=var('t')
sage: sqrt((-m*sin(m*t))^2+(n*cos(n*t))^2).nintegral(x,0,2*pi)
where m, n were determined in an interact. But I used the wrong
variable in nintegral! In addition,
sage:
On Feb 12, 7:23 am, rjf wrote:
> How much work do you think Maxima should do to try to determine for
> arbitrary f, if f(x)>0 or not?
Perhaps the same amount of work as for the successful solution of the
following two problems:
sage: bool((sin(x)^2+cos(x)^2).simplify_full()>0)
True
sage: bool(
> Are you aware of the results of Daniel Richardson on the recursive
> undecidability of
> (rather simple) identities? He proved that in general there is no
> algorithm possible.
Yeah, and the halting problem is undecidable too, but you would still call the
following program "stupid":
while 1:
I don't understand this.
What command was sent to Maxima?
What bug are you referring to?
Perhaps that Maxima does not have an algorithm that you think it
should have?
Are you aware of the results of Daniel Richardson on the recursive
undecidability of
(rather simple) identities? He proved that i
On Feb 11, 9:45 am, kcrisman wrote:
Hi,
> There are of course several trac tickets related to this, so this is
> not a bug report (for Sage or for Maxima), but I had to laugh when
> this came up today in preparing for class - enjoy!
Well, it would be truly funny if we didn't use Maxima for s
23 matches
Mail list logo
