sen wrote:> Bob Baker wrote:> > You're right, since f(x) was a log() and shows up inside some exp() in > > the integrand, quite a bit of simplification is possible. I suppose > > the authors of the paper said to themselves, "Our form is more compact > > and matches our derivation, so why simplify it--let Mathematica do > > that." It appears to have worked, although I don't have an > > independent check on most of the results they gave.> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> >> > _______________________________________________> > Maxima mailing list> > Maxima at math.utexas.edu> > http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima>; > > For what it's worth, I tried your function in Mathematica 3.0 and it > cranked for a long time and then gave up with an "out of memory" message.> > -sen
That's an interesting data point. I sent the question to the Maple group and got replies from two people showing listings of Maple sessions. They both put in the function definitions in my original form, and the expected symbolic results popped right out and agreed with the Mathematica results from the paper. (They didn't mention anything about the running time.) It seems to me this is the way you would want a math assistant to work.
I contacted Maplesoft and they won't sell me the student version. However, they have an unadvertised Home User version which is reasonable. You can only get it by calling them on the phone.
Bob