Is there a way to suppress messages from tellsimp?

I did not give enough information for this to be a useful comment on the issue.

I was wrong  This is the real life example

(%i1) matchdeclare([aa,bb,cc],constantp, xx, lambda([z],not constantp(z)))$
(%i2) matchdeclare([uu,uv], lambda(
         [z,[v]],
         freeof('unit_step,z)
         and freeof('kron_delta,z)
         and freeof('diracdelta,z)
         and freeof('signum,z))
)$

(%i3) 
tellsimp('integrate(uu*unit_step(xx+aa),xx),(at(integrate(at(uu,[xx=xx-aa]),xx),[xx=xx+aa])-at(integrate(at(uu,[xx=xx-aa]),xx),[xx=0]))*unit_step(xx+aa))$
Warning: Putting rules on '+' or '*' is inefficient, and may not work.
xx+aa partitions `sum'

I did not see the warning when I do a load(pw).  I only get the message

xx+aa partitions `sum'

It seems to work anyway but the warning is in fact quite true, my rules are very slow and that is my problem which I was going to 
solve by rewriting pw.mac to not even using tellsimp.

Rich


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Hennessy" <rvh2007 at comcast.net>
To: "Robert Dodier" <robert.dodier at gmail.com>; "Richard Fateman" <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
Cc: "Maxima List" <maxima at math.utexas.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Maxima] Is there a way to suppress messages from tellsimp?


I don't think it is a warning at all.  It is an informational message stating that you are breaking a sum into two mutually
exclusive terms.  In this case constant terms from nonconstant terms like

declare([a,b,c],constant);

(a+b+c+5*a) + (x)

aa gets the first term and xx gets x.  But I noticed they do not have to be always mutually exclusive, either way you get the
message.

Rich





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Dodier" <robert.dodier at gmail.com>
To: "Richard Fateman" <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
Cc: "Maxima List" <maxima at math.utexas.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Maxima] Is there a way to suppress messages from tellsimp?


On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Richard Fateman
<fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> A properly constructed pattern will almost never get such a message.  I can
> see that perhaps in a collection of 25 carefully written rules, you might have
> one that validly partitions a sum or product.  If you have 25 such warnings,
> I would be very suspicious.

The "foo partitions bar" message is triggered by constructs like this:

matchdeclare (xx, foo_p, yy, not_foo_p);
foo_p (e) := not atom(e) and op(e) = 'foo;
not_foo_p (e) := not foo_p (e);
tellsimpafter (xx*yy, FOO (xx, yy));
 => yy xx partitions `product'

Since the predicates foo_p and not_foo_p are exhaustive and
mutually exclusive, this is really a best-case scenario.

The rules I write usually have such predicates (because they make
life easier) so they usually get the warning message.

FWIW

Robert Dodier
_______________________________________________
Maxima mailing list
Maxima at math.utexas.edu
http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima

_______________________________________________
Maxima mailing list
Maxima at math.utexas.edu
http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima