Waldek,
I just commited fix for the bug to the repository, but note then
even with fix you may prefer to use 'sqrt(-1)' insted of '%i' in
rules, because '%i' does not match imaginary part of '2 + %i':
complex pattern matching considers '%i' and '2 + %i' to be to
distinct complex constants.
Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
I just commited fix for the bug to the repository, but note then
even with fix you may prefer to use 'sqrt(-1)' insted of '%i' in
rules, because '%i' does not match imaginary part of '2 + %i':
complex pattern matching considers '%i' and '2 + %i' to be to
distinct
Compiled code (from last year) used to work, now after compiling a domain, I
get the following error, any hints what was changed and now could be wrong in
my code?
(4) - )sh SC
System error:
The function /VERSIONCHECK is undefined.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Johannes Grabmeier
Prof.
Johannes Grabmeier wrote:
Compiled code (from last year) used to work, now after compiling a domain, =
I get the following error, any hints what was changed and now could be wron=
g in my code?
(4) - )sh SC
System error:
The function /VERSIONCHECK is undefined.
The
On 04/23/2014 12:23 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
FriCAS treats '%i' and 'sqrt(-1)' as two almost unrelated things:
'%i' is just a constant from base ring, while 'sqrt(-1)' is
a kernel.
Perfect. I suspected that the original Axiom developers did it right.
Ralf
--
You received this message
I have some problems when I try to have high order generic functions in Fricas:
For example, 'plus' is a high order generic functions that takes two functions
(f,g) and returns an (anonymous) function (with parameter x) that returns the
sum of f(x) and g(x) :
1. Do it in REPL:
plus (f,g) ==
The problem is that the rule does not have the right type. Manual
intervention is necessary.
cut
Ok, thanks. It works.
Now, I'm still stuck with Jacobi-Anger
expansionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobi–Anger_expansion
Suppose I have an expression
test_eqn := exp( sqrt(-1) * a * sin(
Strictly speaking the following commands to the interpreter
plus (f,g) == x+-f(x)+g(x)
and
double n == n + n
do not define functions but rather modes. A mode can stand for many
possible functions.
On the other hand
plus(f:INT-INT,g:INT-INT):INT-INT == (x:INT):INT +- f(x)+g(x)
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote:
Strictly speaking the following commands to the interpreter
plus (f,g) == x+-f(x)+g(x)
and
double n == n + n
do not define functions but rather modes. A mode can stand for many
possible functions.
On 23 April 2014 09:59, jiazhaoconga jiazhaoco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote:
Strictly speaking the following commands to the interpreter
plus (f,g) == x+-f(x)+g(x)
and
double n == n + n
do not define functions
Hmmm... Acutally I really wouldn't expect this to work in the
interpreter given what I know about it's design, but it seems OK in
when using the compiler:
(3) - h := plus2(double2,double2)$PLSPKG(FLOAT,FLOAT)
(3) theMap(PLSPKG;plus2;3M;1!0,655)
So that I can do 'h := plus2(double2,double2);h 4; h 3.5' without
specify any type.
May I ask, why this is so important to you? I mean not specifying types.
Ralf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
FriCAS - computer algebra system group.
To
On 04/23/2014 04:41 PM, jiazhaoconga wrote:
For example, D(compose(f,g)) == compose(D(f),g) * D(g)
[without mention independent variable 'x']
which * is _*(f,g) == x+-f(x)*g(x)
FriCAS can do this easily, but the point is that FriCAS needs to know
about the types of f,
If I simply define and use a rule
exp_to_bessel_rule := rule exp( sqrt(-1) * z * sin(t) ) == besselJ( N, z
) * exp( sqrt( -1 ) * N * t )
exp_to_bessel_rule( test_eqn )
then I'll get expression with 2 identical summation indices ( 'N' in this
case ), which is clearly not something
That cannot work. You are basically asking that the system delays
everything until you ask for a value. That is basically saying that all
you do is untyped and only when you evaluate types will be tried to
match. In other words, you basically move all the typing stuff from
compiletime to
Hi Bill,
[breakdepth={10}]
I thought that saved me, but look at the attached file.
Compile it and then remove the first and last brace inside dmath and
compile again. With outer { } there is no linebreak. :-(
Obviously the breakdepth has rather to do with \left( and \right) or
maybe just
jiazhaoconga wrote:
Hmmm... Acutally I really wouldn't expect this to work in the
interpreter given what I know about it's design, but it seems OK in
when using the compiler:
(3) - h := plus2(double2,double2)$PLSPKG(FLOAT,FLOAT)
(3) theMap(PLSPKG;plus2;3M;1!0,655)
17 matches
Mail list logo
