I was just hoping I could get away with using maxima instead of paying
for mathematica... guess not.
Thanks anyway!
On 01/08/06, Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Furthermore, it sometimes happens that Maxima's knowledge is not used in all
> the places that it might be used for reasons of efficiency, or because the
> feature was programmed before the "assume" facility existed and was not
> fixed to use it.
>
> How much work do you want "for i:a step b thru c do ... when it compares
> a+i*b to c? I haven't looked at the code, but I would be surprised if
> assumptions were used there. :)
>
>
> RJF
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: maxima-admin at math.utexas.edu [mailto:maxima-admin at math.utexas.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Stavros Macrakis
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 7:34 AM
> > To: none none
> > Cc: Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Maxima] simplification based on assumptions
> >
> > Unfortunately, Maxima does not currently know that a>b implies a>b-5 :
> >
> > assume(a>b)$
> > is(a>b-5);
> > => Maxima was unable to evaluate the predicate
> >
> > Obviously this sort of thing should be improved.
> >
> >
> > On 8/1/06, none none <lots.of.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > (%i1) assume(a > b);
> > (%o1) [a > b]
> > (%i3) max(a, b - 5);
> > (%o3) max(b - 5, a)
> >
> > Surely maxima is able to see that 'max(b - 5, a)' is always 'a'?
> >
> >
>
>
>