Le mardi 28 février 2017 15:57:53 UTC+1, mmarco a écrit : > > Many RUBI rules actually consist on applying that kind of algorithms. The > trick with those algorithms is that sometimes they help, and sometimes they > hurt (in the sense that you get something that is actually harder to > integrate). > > One of the important things about RUBI that many people forget about is > that it not only is able to integrate more expressions than > Mathematica/Maple/Maxima... (and usually does it faster), but that it also > often produces "better" output (in the sense of more compact > expressions and/or fewer discontinuity problems). In general, each rule of > RUBI turns the expression into something simpler, so even if you don't have > the full set of rules, you can use the ones you have as a preprocessing > step for other kinds of algorithms. > > But what about using them in the middle of other algorithms? Because that is what you would want to do. For example if you have a generic expression with an inverse trig function, then it makes sense to do integration by part, and after that you might apply some nice and compact expression obtained by a rule on sqrt. Or maybe you should do a partial fraction decomposition somewhere. My main concern with what I looked at is that some rules should be grouped in one algorithm. There are too many rules in rubi...
-- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
