Re: [Maxima-bugs] [ maxima-Bugs-1407378 ] polarform returns a rectangular expression for float argumen

 I think the correct answer is none of the above (or below) for polar.
Polar form could be represented internally as a pair,
say
  polar(a,b)  for   a*e^(%i*b)    with suitable restrictions or assumptions 
on  a, b.. e.g.      a>=0,     -pi<b<=pi.

polar(1,0)  could be the canonical representation for 1.

The next question is, how to display  polar(a,b)   or in particular, 
polar(1,0).
My suggestion is to just leave it as polar(a,b).   If someone wants to do 
something else
with it, like convert it to   a*exp(%i*b),  then that is OK, but that is not
polar form any more.

This decision means that we open (yet again) a can of worms,  e.g.
how does the simplifier deal with polar(a,b)+polar(c,d),    or polar(a,b)+c
etc.
These are not incidental; they actually pertain to what we really want to do
with different forms in Maxima.  Another example is how to deal with 
"real_interval"
objects, which I have been puzzling over.
RJF


Now the discussion below has to do with how this is displayed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Raymond Toy" <raymond.toy at ericsson.com>
To: <macrakis at alum.mit.edu>
Cc: "Maxima" <maxima at math.utexas.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Maxima] Re: [Maxima-bugs] [ maxima-Bugs-1407378 ] polarform 
returns a rectangular expression for float argumen


>>>>>> "Stavros" == Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at gmail.com> writes:
>
>    Stavros> Along these lines, what do we think polarform(1) should 
> return?  The
>    Stavros> reasonable answers are:
>
>    Stavros>       -- 1             (current result)
>    Stavros>       -- %e^0       (simplify the 1* part)
>    Stavros>       -- 1*1          (no good argument for this case, I don't 
> think...)
>    Stavros>       -- 1*%e^0    (no simplification at all to preserve the 
> form)
>
> I think either the first or the last would be acceptable, with a
> slight preference to the first.  If the latter were written
> 1*%e^(0*%i), it might be better than the first.  I think the other two
> would just cause people to wonder why they weren't simplified.
>
> Ray
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>