>>> Also part of the problem is that the assume system in Maxima >>> is not very strong, and it has bugs. We could use some help on >>> that too. >> >> What are your ideas to handle assumptions correctly? >> >> E.g. from your slides you prefer the formula and all the symbols to be >> just symbols without any assumptions attached to them, plus there >> should be some global (?) assumptions (those need to be made robust) >> and the functions consult them? I like this approach. >> >> Maxima has years of experience in this, so I am interested in what you think. > >If you answer could you summarize what Maple/Mathematica do (if you care), >and if so why you think whatever you propose is better than them. > >In fact, if any Maple or Mathematica users out there want to explain >(probably for the nth time) how Maple or Mathematica deals with these >assumption and multiple-possible-integral problems, and whether or not >they like the choices made by those systems, please speak up! > >(Derive, Mupad, Axiom people too...)
Visit: <http://axiom.axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/CATS/> view the pdf file for "Schaums 14.120-14.124" (schaum5.input.pdf) See the result on page 3 of the pdf. The first integral result returned by Axiom is a list of answers. Tim Daly --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
