Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2009, 13:58 +0100 schrieb Rupert Swarbrick:
> Hi,
>
> I read the conversation about changing how limit deals with integrate()
> etc. and I completely agree that it's the right thing to
> do. However... I've got some code that I wrote this morning and worked
> until I pulled the latest version of maxima, so I was kind of surprised!
>
> Basically, it looks something like
>
> approx_for_eps: 'integrate( something_nasty, s, A-eps, A );
>
> and then you get a Taylor series for the approximation by
> differentiating the above and taking the limit as eps -> 0+. Problem is,
> the limits now all include noun forms :)
>
> Is there a way to tell Maxima that "Yes, I know what I'm doing. This
> integral is continuous." ?
>
> I think changing the limit code to be more mathematically correct is
> good. But I also think that one needs to be able ask for the more
> specific result if the integrand is known to be smooth (say) but is far
> From being integrable.
Hello Rupert,
do you have a more complete example what you would like to do?
Dieter Kaiser