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.
Rupert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/attachments/20090916/b9eca02a/attachment.pgp