Macrakis wrote:
>
> I don't have time to look at the details, but did you try
> ratsimp(expr),algebraic:true (with the tellrat in force) on the result?
I have been trying to learn Maxima for some time now and I have a few
observations I would like to pass on.
1) The learning curve for simplification is way too steep.
Maxima must be improved in this area. Here is an example:
While trying to write a batch file to explicitly factor a 3rd order
polynomial into its 1st and 2nd order parts, I gave the program a known
set of numerical values just to see if I had made any typos yet. The
answer was not what I was expecting so I went through the code but could
find no fault there. So to make a long story short, after much time I
found that the answer was just a long way of saying 0.
Here it is:
(%i28) EV(a9,NUMER)
(%o28)
0.03703703703704*(0.57735026918963*(-1)^0.16666666666667*(27.0*(-%I)^0.66666666666667-27)
-31.1769145362398*(-%I)^0.33333333333333)
(%i29) EV(a9,RATSIMP)
(%o29) 0
(%i30) EV(REALPART(a9),NUMER)
(%o30) -1.0
(%i31) EV(IMAGPART(a9),NUMER)
(%o31) -1.732050807568877
Now I don't know what to believe!!!!!
Now I find out there is also a " ratsimp(expr),algebraic:true (with the
tellrat in force)" combinations!!!! ( from above)
When I look at: describe(simp) and start reading through all the options
there, I just give up!! After many hours of trying to factor a 3rd order
int a 1st and second order I give up. I did this in basic and in "C" and
in pascal and could do it in Fortran and Fourth and in Z80 68HC11 6809
etc, but not in Maxima.
When you get it working I will try it again.
Doug Stewart B.E.Sc. P.Eng.