Mathematica has (at least) two separate commands that are related to this
issue.
Reduce
Solve
It is possible to educate yourself on this topic by reading the Mathematica
reference manual online.
For what it is worth it, I think that Mathematica's Reduce is what you want
here.
RJF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu
> [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Dodier
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:41 AM
> To: Stavros Macrakis
> Cc: Maxima
> Subject: Re: [Maxima] linsolve, final
>
> On 4/2/07, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 4/2/07, Kostas Oikonomou <ko at research.att.com> wrote:
> > > However, is the result "Inconsistent equations" really
> appropriate for [x=2,y=3], [x]?
> > > I think it would mystify the average user (e.g. me)!
> > > Shouldn't the result be [x=2]?
> >
> > I agree that the message is confusing. However, it *is* actually
> > consistent with the basic meaning of "solve". solve(eqs,vars) means
> > "return the values of vars which make eqs true". If eqs contain
> > parameters (i.e. variables which are not members of vars), the
> > solution must be true for all values of the parameters.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't agree with this at all.
>
> "Return the values of vars which make eqs true" is one
> interpretation of
> solving eqs for var, but another, which seems no less natural,
> is "conclude what you can about vars given eqs". If eqs includes
> enough to draw conclusions about vars plus some irrelevant stuff,
> the presence of the irrelevant stuff is no need for us to fail.
>
> Maybe linsolve was written with "return the values of vars which make
> eqs true" in mind, and if so I suppose that should be reflected in
> the documentation, but it seems unwarranted to treat that as
> "THE basic meaning of solve" (emphasis added).
>
> FWIW
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>