On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Miquel Cabanas wrote:
> hi Hugo,
>
> On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 14:02 +0100, Hugo Coolens wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Jaime E. Villate wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 12:02 +0100, Hugo Coolens wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the quick reply, I changed the syntax as you suggested but
>>>> entering zth[2]; gives:
>>>>
>>>> zth(1) s + 1
>>>>
>>>> ------------------
>>>>
>>>> (zth(1) + 1) s + 1
>>> that's because you only changed one of the 2 occurrences of
>>> of zth(m-1) into zth[m-1]
>>> You still have one more zth(m-1) to correct.
>> I don't know what's happening here, but I ensure you I did change both
>> ocurrences. I now copied and pasted Miquels example and I get the same
>> (wrong) result as you can see here:
>>
>> [...]
>
>> (%i99) radcan(zth[2]);
>> (%o99) (zth(1)*s+1)/((zth(1)+1)*s+1)
>
> start a fresh session and try the code there. As Jaime has pointed, you
> must have some wrong definitions around that are messing with your
> calculations.
I closed xmaxima and restarted it. And now everything works like a charm.
I suppose there is a more elegant way to make xmaxima "forget earlier
definitions"?
I wish to thank you and Jaime once more for helping "a stupid newbie" so
patiently.
regards,
hugo