that crashed for me. It reminds me of an old joke .. <synopsis> Man goes to doctor and says, It hurts when I do this <contortion>. Doctor says, don't do <contortion>.
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 domain:complex. It would of course be nice to fix whatever happens to cause Maxima to go into the rabbit hole on this problem (stack overflow) . To see it going into spasms, do :lisp (trace meval) and it tries to do computations with lim-epsilon, something called prin-inf, 1.0e8. and some newly generated symbols. RJF On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 3:48:19 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote: > > 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 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 observed in maxima >> directly: >> > > In general, many Sage/vanilla Maxima discrepancies come from the > "domain:complex" invocation. I'm not sure why that is, but we need > domain:complex for some basic stuff to work right (it's been so long the > default that I can't remember any more what that is, though Trac will > surely tell us). > > Anyway, perhaps Dan or Eric can file a Trac ticket. If you are able to > also file a Maxima report and then link to that, that would be ideal - > thanks! > -- 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, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/92d796b8-0e5a-4524-970a-09e5c1510096o%40googlegroups.com.
