The problem exists in maxima too:
Maxima 5.26.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp ECL 12.2.1 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) limit((2^x+3^x)^(1/x),x,inf); (%o1) 3 (%i2) declare(a,integer); (%o2) done (%i3) limit((2^a+3^a)^(1/a),a,inf); (%o3) inf On 22 nov, 22:40, Andrzej Giniewicz <ggi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > it is obvious to me, that specifying assumptions can give us results, when > one cannot compute them in general form (and there are samples in docs). > But should making assumptions dramatically change them? > > This result worries me, is this a known thing, or my misunderstanding of > what changes when one "assumes integer"? After assumption, this elementary > level (like calculus101) limit changes from 3 to +Infinity, result that > doesn't sound right at all: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Sage Version 5.4, Release Date: 2012-11-09 | > | Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface. | > | Type "help()" for help. | > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > sage: w = (2^x + 3^x)^(1/x) > sage: limit(w, x=oo) > 3 > sage: assume(x, 'integer') > sage: limit(w, x=oo) > +Infinity > > I don't know maxima, but as far as I know, limits are calculated there (at > least that was the case when I looked at it last time) - could someone > please check if this is wrong there also? It looks like upstream issue, but > wanted to make sure and gather second opinion before reporting. > > Thanks, > Andrzej. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
