1 Nov 2005 03:06
Re: Teaching maxima a new identity
Doug Stewart <dastew <at> sympatico.ca>
2005-11-01 02:06:59 GMT
2005-11-01 02:06:59 GMT
Macrakis wrote:
>
> I don't have time to look at the details, but did you try
> ratsimp(expr),algebraic:true (with the tellrat in force) on the result?
I have been trying to learn Maxima for some time now and I have a few
observations I would like to pass on.
1) The learning curve for simplification is way too steep.
Maxima must be improved in this area. Here is an example:
While trying to write a batch file to explicitly factor a 3rd order
polynomial into its 1st and 2nd order parts, I gave the program a known
set of numerical values just to see if I had made any typos yet. The
answer was not what I was expecting so I went through the code but could
find no fault there. So to make a long story short, after much time I
found that the answer was just a long way of saying 0.
Here it is:
(%i28) EV(a9,NUMER)
(%o28)
0.03703703703704*(0.57735026918963*(-1)^0.16666666666667*(27.0*(-%I)^0.66666666666667-27)
-31.1769145362398*(-%I)^0.33333333333333)
(%i29) EV(a9,RATSIMP)
(%o29) 0
(%i30) EV(REALPART(a9),NUMER)
(%o30) -1.0
(%i31) EV(IMAGPART(a9),NUMER)
(%o31) -1.732050807568877
Now I don't know what to believe!!!!!
(Continue reading)
Robert> That would be excellent also. Thanks, Ray
I took a look, and, in fact, it's different enough that it means it
has to be new code, I think. The previous adaptive plot just checked
to see if the y values were close enough. Now you have to check both
the x and y values are close enough, so this is different. Might be
able to use the same criteria as the adaptive plot to make this
happen, but I'm not sure.
In either case, it seems like new code is required. So real
development needs to be done.
Ray
RSS Feed