It is possible to ask for comments from both Zeilberger and Gosper.
The Gosper/Zeilberger processing COULD in principle be very time-consuming.
RJF
-----Original Message-----
From: maxima-admin at math.utexas.edu [mailto:maxima-admin at math.utexas.edu] On
Behalf Of Robert Dodier
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:50 AM
To: macrakis at alum.mit.edu
Cc: maxima at math.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: [Maxima] Summation question
On 7/4/06, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any (good) reason that nusum and GosperSum don't handle
> sum(...,i,inf)? No reason for the core logic to understand what's going
on,
> but why not perform sum(...,i,gensym) then if it's a nounform, subst
> gensym=inf, else return limit( ... , gensym, inf).
I am inclined to leave alone nusum and GosperSum,
and to put the gensym / limit logic into simpsum instead.
(I don't see why simpsum shouldn't invoke the Gosper
and/or Zeilberger stuff; so far as I know it's not very
time or memory consuming.)
So what I propose is that if simpsum can't make progress,
it calls Gosper and/or Zeilberger, after substituting a gensym
into the expression if need be, and calls the limit stuff
afterward.
Comments?
Robert
_______________________________________________
Maxima mailing list
Maxima at math.utexas.edu
http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima