On Feb 18, 8:24 pm, Mark Rahner <[email protected]> wrote: > I appreciate that background info. I hadn't tried invoking maxima > because I read somewhere that simplify() used maxima. I must've been > reading outdated material. As you stated, maxima does the correct > thing. Because Sage can invoke maxima, perhaps I have a work around.
Well, it *does* use maxima, but in this case it just sends it to Maxima and back. So once it comes back to Sage, its internal representation goes back to the Ginac one. > You're right that this issue should be considered in the context of > powers. In that context, I think it is even more clear that > "5^(-1/2)" is simpler than "(1/5) * 5^(1/2)". Leaving the additional > term doesn't seem like a big deal, but by preventing subsequent > simplifications, and by combining and recombining with other large > expressions, it can have highly undesirable effects. > I took a quick look at ginsh, the GiNaC interactive shell. It > converts 1/sqrt(5) to 1/5*sqrt(5) so I suspect that this issue can be > traced to the GiNaC canonical form. I'm not a CAS expert but I know a Great, then that solves it. I haven't had a working ginsh for a while, so I didn't check to make sure. > fair amount about computer system interfaces and I'm sure this issue > adversely impacts the user experience. Nobody would select equation > obfuscation mode given the choice. However, there may be other reasons for this choice. I hesitate to critique either the GiNaC or Maxima folks (or anyone else) on thorny canonicalization of simplification questions. > I think this issue should be taken up with the GiNaC folks. Do they > hang out in this group? One or two are on the sage-devel list. Or you can ask on https://www.ginac.de/mailman/listinfo/ginac-devel, I think. -- To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
