Probably. ev is a funny command (not a function, really, because it
controls the evaluation of its arguments), and can have surprising effects.
In general, xxx:abc$ ev(xxx,def); is NOT equivalent to ev(abc,def).
For example, ev(factor(6)) => 2*3, but factor(6)$ev(%) => 6
Even worse:
solve(x^2=2,x)$ %,numer;
[x = -1.414213562373095,x = 1.414213562373095]
ev(solve(x^2=2,x),numer);
[x = 1.414213551646055*%e^(1.0*%i*%pi),x =
1.414213551646055*%e^(2.0*%i*%pi)]
This is a bug, but it does show that ev(...) is not equivalent to ...$ev(%);
-s
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:07, Renzo Del Fabbro <renzodelfabbro at alice.it>wrote:
> Stavros Macrakis <macrakis <at> alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
> >
> > No, "%,numer" on the command line is syntactic sugar for "ev(xxx,numer)"
>
> and so could be
>
> ic2(%,t=0,i=i0,diff(i,t)=(v0-2*R*i0)/L),numer ;
>
> right ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Renzo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>