With maxima 5.23.2:
(%i1) radcan((2*x^2/(x^2+1)-1)/sqrt(-4*x^2/(x^2+1)^2+1) );
(%o1)
1
radcan(((2*x^2-x^2-1)/(x^2+1))/sqrt((x^2-1)^2/(x^2+1)^2));
2
x - 1
(%o2)
!
2!
Thank you! This is now reported to Maxima at
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=3167163group_id=4933atid=104933
On Jan 28, 10:38 am, Loïc xl...@free.fr wrote:
With maxima 5.23.2:
(%i1) radcan((2*x^2/(x^2+1)-1)/sqrt(-4*x^2/(x^2+1)^2+1) );
(%o1)
1
On Jan 27, 12:38 pm, Loïc xl...@free.fr wrote:
Hi list,
I found a problem with simplify_radical()
sage: f(x)=asin(2*x/(x^2+1))
sage: g=f.derivative();g
x |-- -2*(2*x^2/(x^2 + 1)^2 - 1/(x^2 + 1))/sqrt(-4*x^2/(x^2 + 1)^2 +
1)
sage: g.simplify_radical()
x |-- -2/(x^2 + 1)
The last
Thanks for your reply,
what you show is very surprising.
Another example in which abs() is corrrectly applied (with no common
denominator)
sage: h=((x^2-1)*x/(x^2+1)^2-x/(x^2+1))/sqrt(-(x^2-1)^2/(x^2 + 1)^2 +
1)
sage: h.simplify_radical()
-x/((x^2 + 1)*abs(x))
Best
Loïc
On 27 jan, 21:55,
Hmm.
Maxima 5.22.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net
using Lisp ECL 10.4.1
Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING.
Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter.
The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information.
(%i1) radcan((2*x^2/(x^2+1)-1)/sqrt(-4*x^2/(x^2+1)^2+1)
A variation on your first try is:
sage: ((a*b - (1/2)*a*(b - c))/a).simplify_radical()
(c + b)/2
which works fine. Maybe it's a bug in maxima. I don't see why you
would need simplify_radical() at all here, since your expression
contains no radicals.
John Cremona
2008/10/24 Stan Schymanski
That's interesting. It seems that the bug lies in the use of floating
point numbers? By the way, simplify_trig and simplify_rational create
the same mistake. I agree that the use of simplify_radical() is not
very useful here, but if it makes such an obvious mistake, how
confident can we be that
On Friday 24 October 2008 15:17:57 Stan Schymanski wrote:
That's interesting. It seems that the bug lies in the use of floating
point numbers? By the way, simplify_trig and simplify_rational create
the same mistake. I agree that the use of simplify_radical() is not
very useful here, but if it
2008/10/24 Stan Schymanski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's interesting. It seems that the bug lies in the use of floating
point numbers? By the way, simplify_trig and simplify_rational create
the same mistake. I agree that the use of simplify_radical() is not
very useful here, but if it makes such
Burcin Erocal wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2008 15:17:57 Stan Schymanski wrote:
That's interesting. It seems that the bug lies in the use of floating
point numbers? By the way, simplify_trig and simplify_rational create
the same mistake. I agree that the use of simplify_radical() is not
very
Thanks for the advice! It seems like a combination of expand() and
simplify() would go a long way. Unfortunately, I am not a
Mathematician and hence struggle to understand rings and fields.
I am still a bit hesitant about simplify, though. Should a bug report
be filed to Maxima? By the way, is
On Friday 24 October 2008 16:20:24 Stan Schymanski wrote:
Thanks for the advice! It seems like a combination of expand() and
simplify() would go a long way. Unfortunately, I am not a
Mathematician and hence struggle to understand rings and fields.
I am still a bit hesitant about simplify,
12 matches
Mail list logo
