Oh and BTW, thanks very much for setting up a sensible testsuite. :) With your permission I would like to add it to the development branch. If you have time I would be happy for a pull request or I could just push what you attached to the email.
On 10 February 2017 at 10:19, Bill Page <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > Thanks for tracking. I am sorry that I have not been doing such a > good job of pushing changes to github. The specific problems that you > see are the result of some experimentation. Things are still in a > state of fairly rapid evolution and I should have something new later > today, time permitting. As you noticed I have been experimenting with > different term orderings as I try to enrich the set of rewrite rules. > As might be expected I have found a few cases that result in > non-termination and have been looking for inspiration in the > literature. For example: > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223818521_Termination_and_completion_modulo_associativity_commutativity_and_identity > > http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachum/papers/survey-draft.pdf > > and several others by Jean-Pierre Jouannaud > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Pierre_Jouannaud/timeline > > Of course there are many other and newer papers on this subject but I > have yet to find one that is a good match for what I am trying to do > right now. If you have any suggestions that would be great. > > Bill. > > > On 9 February 2017 at 21:13, Kurt Pagani <[email protected]> wrote: >> Bill, >> >> I pulled the latest version of sexpr.spad today and now get an error I have >> no >> explanation for (I created a unit test file using the input from the >> sandbox). >> >> Four of the seven errors (see tail of sexpr.output) are not errors as such, >> only >> caused by the ordering. >> >> case ex2:20 and 21 might be caused by the Unittest itself, though I'm not >> sure. >> >> case ex4:4 is strange: the rule application "rc t2" does not work anymore and >> building "expr" take 30s, and even worse "rc rs expr" takes almost 100s >> (result >> is wrong due to failing of "rc"). >> >> I had a look at the diff on github but got no clue where it might come from. >> You will certainly find it in no time. >> Kurt >> >> >> Am 05.02.2017 um 05:05 schrieb Bill Page: >>> The reason that i wrote this as _rule is because the interpreter seems >>> to have a bug that coerces things to Expression Integer. Using the >>> function call syntax seems to get around that and I also use a package >>> call in order to be very specific if necessary. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
