if we prefer exp(x) to %e^x, I think there are lots of consequences like %e
becomes exp(1), and subst(2,%e,%e^x) results in exp(x), not 2^x. And maybe
stuff like sqrt(x) becomes exp(1/2*log(x)). Also sqrt(%e) has 2 values, but
exp(1/2) has only one.
Whether these are good or bad consequences isn't clear.
RJF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu
> [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Dodier
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:56 PM
> To: Stavros Macrakis
> Cc: fateman at EECS.Berkeley.EDU; maxima at math.utexas.edu
> Subject: Re: [Maxima] constants, simplification, numerical evaluation
>
> On 3/14/08, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Summary: if you want uniform behavior, set %enumer:true,
> > and you're all set. If you want to do better than that....
>
> It seems like we could make Maxima simpler and more consistent
> by treating exp(x) like other "elementary" functions (trig,
> hyperbolic,
> etc) and applying to exp(x) the same rules for numeric computation
> as for the other functions. Instead of simplifying exp(x) to %e^x,
> exp(x) should be preserved. With no %e in sight during simplification,
> we can be rid of %enumer which is nothing but trouble anyway,
> and get useful and predictable numerical behavior without making
> up more special cases.
>
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>