I think that using $ratsimp is hazardous, simply because you can do
a lot of work, unintentionally. e.g. is(equal((a+b+c)^1000,
(a+b+c)^1001));
There is a "partially factored form" that can save time here, but you get
the idea.
RJF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu
> [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Willis
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:18 PM
> To: macrakis at alum.mit.edu
> Cc: maxima
> Subject: Re: [Maxima] experimental meqp
>
> -----"Stavros Macrakis" wrote: -----
>
>
> >Do we really want 'is' to try to figure out what the user meant? Or
> >should we keep it simple and clear?
> >
> > -s
> >
>
> It's fun to see what some imagination and a dozen lines of
> code can do. For meqp, I think simple and clear means to
> ditch the code that compares arrays and lambda forms. Toy
> examples make it seem cute, but it doesn't work well enough
> to be useful:
>
> (%i4) f(x) := x$
> (%i5) is(equal(f, lambda([x],x)));
> Maxima was unable to evaluate the predicate:
>
> Oh it's all fixable, but I don't know that it would be all
> that useful. What do you all think?
>
> Barton
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>