I've noticed this too. I wonder if they purposely implemented Sage syntax or if it's just a very comprehensive parser.
On Feb 20, 7:40 pm, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > I noticed a couple of things on sage-devel recently about integration > with Maxima. It appears Maxima can't do either of these two. (Well, it > does the second one, but leaves it in a overly complex form, that > Sage's n(). can't even use). > > integrate( sqrt(x^2+4)/(x^2+1), x ) > > integrate(log(1+x)/(x^2+1),(x,0,1)) # (This one from the Putman 2005 > challenge) > > I noticed that if one sticks that exact syntax into Wolfram|Alpha, it > evaluates the integrals. There's no need to re-write the integrals in > Mathematica's syntax.. If one was to use Mathematica directly, then > the sage syntax would not be understood. > > I guess none of this is not totally surprising, but can be useful to > get a second opinion on something, without even taking the trouble to > rewrite the problem in Mathematica's syntax. > > See: > > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate%28%20sqrt%28x^2%2B4%29%2F%28x^2%2B1%29%2C%20x%20%29&t=ff3tb01 > > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate%28log%281%2Bx%29%2F%28x^2%2B1%29%2C%28x%2C0%2C1%29%29&t=ff3tb01 > > Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
