On 03/12/12 11:00, Peter H. wrote:
> I should amend my comment, since I was sloppy. Neither `x+1` nor `-x
> -1` is inherently positive or negative. `|x+1|` is the only thing
> that is, so that output would be the most correct result of your real
> expression. If Maxima doesn't actually return th
In this case I have to agree with Richard. The problem is not for real
domains, where it's possible to make a continuous choice of square root.
But for complex input there's no nice way to choose which root you want.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane#Multi-valued_relationships_and_bra
On 03/10/2012 08:32 AM, rjf wrote:
You pretty much are missing the boat on what to do here.
You seem to think you are constrained to return something that Maxima
returns, and simultaneously think that you are building some kind of new
mathematical "correct" system.
There are two branches to the
On 03/06/12 14:26, Oscar Lazo wrote:
>>
>> 2. We can replace the existing simplify with,
>>
>>simplify_factorial ->
>>simplify_trig ->
>>simplify_rational ->
>>simplify_log
>>
>> which seem to be safe in practice. I like this, because it does actually
>> try to simplify the expressi
On 03/06/12 12:17, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> This is very wrong over the reals, where we *should* get abs(x+1) rather
> than choosing +(x+1) or -(x+1) randomly.
It's also super frickin' wrong over the complex numbers:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12322
but that's not the problem I
On 03/06/12 12:03, daniel.kho wrote:
>>sage: f = sqrt(x^2 + 2*x + 1)
>>sage: f.full_simplify()
>>x + 1
>>
>> I think the user should have to try *really* hard to ask us for this
>> simplification.
>>
>> Right now, simplify() just sends an expression to maxima and back. Full
>> simplify
