On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Robert wrote: > >> Also part of the problem is that the assume system in Maxima >> is not very strong, and it has bugs. We could use some help on >> that too. > > What are your ideas to handle assumptions correctly? > > E.g. from your slides you prefer the formula and all the symbols to be > just symbols without any assumptions attached to them, plus there > should be some global (?) assumptions (those need to be made robust) > and the functions consult them? I like this approach. > > Maxima has years of experience in this, so I am interested in what you think.
If you answer could you summarize what Maple/Mathematica do (if you care), and if so why you think whatever you propose is better than them. In fact, if any Maple or Mathematica users out there want to explain (probably for the nth time) how Maple or Mathematica deals with these assumption and multiple-possible-integral problems, and whether or not they like the choices made by those systems, please speak up! (Derive, Mupad, Axiom people too...) -- william --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
