On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> the bug is not really in maxima, it's in Sage's interface to maxima:
>
> (%i7) limit(2/5*((3/4)^m - 1)*(a0 - 100) + 1/5*(3*(3/4)^m +
> 2)*a0,m,inf);
> (%o7) 40
>
> The stack overflow
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, 23 November 2015 19:38:39 UTC, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Monday, 23 November 2015 00:43:02 UTC, William wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This definitely looks like
On Monday, 23 November 2015 19:38:39 UTC, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 23 November 2015 00:43:02 UTC, William wrote:
> >>
> >> This definitely looks like a bug. In the meantime, a workaround is to
> >> use sympy:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, 23 November 2015 00:43:02 UTC, William wrote:
>>
>> This definitely looks like a bug. In the meantime, a workaround is to
>> use sympy:
>>
>> sage: var('m a0')
>> (m, a0)
>> sage: x=2/5*((3/4)^m - 1)*(a0 - 100) + 1/5*(3*
On Monday, 23 November 2015 00:43:02 UTC, William wrote:
>
> This definitely looks like a bug. In the meantime, a workaround is to
> use sympy:
>
> sage: var('m a0')
> (m, a0)
> sage: x=2/5*((3/4)^m - 1)*(a0 - 100) + 1/5*(3*(3/4)^m + 2)*a0;x
> 2/5*((3/4)^m - 1)*(a0 - 100) + 1/5*(3*(
(note, I am not on the sage list or gms list, so this probably won't
make it there unless someone forwards it)
SymPy's limit primarily uses the Gruntz algorithm, which is fairly
capable. I'm not an expert on it, so others will be able to comment in
more detail, but as far as I know, it's mostly re
>
>
> I wonder -- to what extent should we be using maxima by default still
> for limits, instead of sympy...? At some point, presumably sympy will
> be uniformly better than maxima?
>
>
>
I've been wondering about this as well (also integrals) for some time.
Unfortunately I haven't had time
