I think that the infsimp() function you are asking for is limit (of one
argument).
It is always "safe" to make things into UND as long as any expression
involving UND is UND.
This is not the most informative result, of course, and it is not easy to
do, since every program must ask if its argument includes UND before doing
anything else.
RJF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu
> [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Harald Geyer
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 3:03 PM
> To: maxima at math.utexas.edu
> Subject: Re: [Maxima] Operations on inf
>
> > I agree that blocking arithmetic on ind/und/etc. completely is one
> > solution. The other (less radical) solution is the one
> which I think
> > we're pursuing, namely giving a failsafe calculational result.
> > Failsafe means that it will sometimes be more conservative than
> > necessary.
>
> I agree. I think maxima should simplify what it can without ambiguity.
> (inf + inf = inf, etc)
>
> > Thus, though 1^inf and 0^0 may often be usefully taken as
> > 1, since in some situations (perhaps rare ones) that would
> lead to an
> > incorrect result, we must leave them as und and ind.
>
> I don't agree that this is the only possible conclusion. Why not
> just leave ambiguous cases like 0^0 alone instead of losing even more
> information?
>
> Such cases could still be handled by some fictious function like
> infsimp().
>
> Regards,
> Harald
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>