Thanks for posting a link to that old (5 year old) report.
The notion that you are computing in the complex domain (functions of many
complex variables??)
is really not enough. Because (as noted) there are multiple branches of
common
functions, choosing one of them (behind the scenes, on the
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 2:48:58 PM UTC-4, rjf wrote:
>
> The development of Macsyma, and Maxima, in a manner similar to that of
> Sage,
> was/is essentially the accumulation of contributions from many hands.
> Sometimes pieces added later have unanticipated effects on older
> code. So
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 2:29:57 AM UTC-4, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 11:03:00 PM UTC-7, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
>>
>> Would it be hard to implement both:
>>
>> .integrate(algorithm='maxima_domain_real')
>> .integrate(algorithm='maxima_domain_complex')
>>
>> ?
>>
>
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 11:03:00 PM UTC-7, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
>
> Would it be hard to implement both:
>
> .integrate(algorithm='maxima_domain_real')
> .integrate(algorithm='maxima_domain_complex')
>
> ?
>
No, as mentioned on the thread linked by William, we could have a context
manager
Would it be hard to implement both:
.integrate(algorithm='maxima_domain_real')
.integrate(algorithm='maxima_domain_complex')
?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 11:48:58 AM UTC-7, rjf wrote:
>
>I guess I still haven't seen an explanation of what
> behavior in maxima is expected by setting domain to complex.
>
There was a long thread about this a few years ago. Here it is:
The development of Macsyma, and Maxima, in a manner similar to that of Sage,
was/is essentially the accumulation of contributions from many hands.
Sometimes pieces added later have unanticipated effects on older
code. So this is not entirely unexpected.
I think that the assume() code, has been
On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 9:02:44 PM UTC-4, rjf wrote:
>
> that crashed for me.
>
> It reminds me of an old joke ..
>
> Man goes to doctor and says, It hurts when I do this .
> Doctor says, don't do .
>
>
Well, probably shouldn't be in the documentation then :-)
See
that crashed for me.
It reminds me of an old joke ..
Man goes to doctor and says, It hurts when I do this .
Doctor says, don't do .
Maxima and Macsyma before it was basically written with real variables in
mind. It would be nice to know exactly what behavior Sage expects
that requires
You only need domain: complex and assume(a>1) for it to crash, in fact.
On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 12:45:39 AM UTC-4, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 4:55:39 PM UTC-7, rjf wrote:
>>
>> In Maxima it works just fine,
>>
>
> You should probably qualify that. Perhaps it works
On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 4:55:39 PM UTC-7, rjf wrote:
>
> In Maxima it works just fine,
>
You should probably qualify that. Perhaps it works fine with the default
settings that maxima uses, but there are combinations on settings that
don't seem so unreasonable for which the failure can be
In Maxima it works just fine,
it doesn't seem to be a Maxima problem. Though assume(t,real) is
meaningless,
and the syntax for maxima would be
integrate(t,t, 0, 4*a-a^2) not
integrate(t,0,4*a-a^2).
integrate doesn't care if the lower limit is less than the upper limit.
On Thursday, July
12 matches
Mail list logo
