On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Aaron Meurer <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Alpha tried to give nice answers. I've never used > Mathematica, but I suspect it would be a little more rigorous about > assumptions, as Maple is and as we should be.
Alpha gave the correct unsimplified answer but also offers expressions "when all symbols are positive" (and it clearly notes such). I didn't mean it gave an answer that was only valid if the symbols were positive. > If the combination is valid (and if it's not we should reconsider how > we do auto-combination in Mul.flatten), then powsimp should be able to > do it. I'm loosing track of what you are referring to, the original expression or the expression for when x and y are positive? I don't think there is anything invalid coming from flatten; flatten just doesn't look for how Mul bases under Rationals can be joined with existing items in the sequence being flattened. I've added a routine to the powsimp module to patch up the sub-optimal Mul.flatten result. (It's in my `and` branch.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. 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/sympy?hl=en.
