Hi Waldek

I've done some elementary tests to try to understand how FriCAS looks at 
n-rooths and log, but now I am even more confused.

* (1) puzzles me: from your previous answer I have understood that (...)^(1/n) with n>1 
was "mostly" seen by FriCAS as a multivalued and possibly complex algebraic 
number. Is (1) an exception?

* (3) seems to suggest that for positive integer n and positive x x^(1/n) = 
e^(log(x)/n), but this is violated by (7)

* (6) and (8) are consistent, but how is defined x^a with a irrational and 
positive x?


(1) -> (1 = (1)^(1/2))::Boolean

    (1)  true
                                                                 Type: Boolean
(2) -> (1 = e^(1/2*log(1)))::Boolean

    (2)  true
                                                                 Type: Boolean
(3) -> (sqrt(1) = e^(1/2*log(1)))::Boolean

    (3)  true
                                                                 Type: Boolean
(4) -> (1 = (1)^(sqrt(3)))::Boolean

    (4)  false
                                                                 Type: Boolean
(5) -> (1 = e^(sqrt(3)*log(1)))::Boolean

    (5)  true
                                                                 Type: Boolean
(6) -> ((1)^(sqrt(3)) = e^(sqrt(3)*log(1)))::Boolean

    (6)  false
                                                                 Type: Boolean
(7) -> (sqrt(2) = e^(1/2*log(2)))::Boolean

    (7)  false
                                                                 Type: Boolean
(8) -> (2^sqrt(2) = e^(sqrt(2)*log(2)))::Boolean

    (8)  false
                                                                 Type: Boolean


I guess that the present status of the code is, as usual, "quite intricated", 
but, if not already done, would it be possible for you to take the time (on the medium 
term) to write a short note or some rule of thumbs to explain to new users how FriCAS 
behaves in view of irrational powers, log, inverse functions, which relations are 
expected to hold, and how integrate and complex integrate behave in view of explicitly 
trascendental numbers, integration variable and external parameters, like a or a^b or 
log(a)?

Furthermore, your view on what should be the ideal target behavior to nicely 
resolve these ambiguities and have a homogeneous interface would surely be a 
relief ...

Best regards
Riccardo

PS Speaking of oddities, to me (11) and (12) should behave in the same way: as 
elements of R->R or or as complex multivalued.

(9) -> sin(0)

    (9)  0
                                                     Type: Expression(Integer)
(10) -> sinh(0)

    (10)  0
                                                     Type: Expression(Integer)
(11) -> asin(0)

    (11)  0
                                                     Type: Expression(Integer)
(12) -> asinh(0)

    (12)  asinh(0)

--
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.

Reply via email to