Um, I think you might want to proofread your examples. In your %i3, you
say x<=1, not x<1, which is what I think you intended.
I tested your example without the not equal assumptions, and it doesn't ask
questions (for me) in Maxima 5.25.1 GCL 2.6.8:
(%i1) display2d:false$
(%i2) assume (x > 0, x < 1);
(%o2) [x > 0,x < 1]
(%i3) integrate (integrate (log (x+y), y, 0, 1), x, 0, 1);
(%o3) (4*log(2)-3)/2
-s
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 17:38, Edwin Woollett <woollett at charter.net> wrote:
> On Mar. 15, Stavros Macrakis wrote
> --------------------------
>
> I was wondering why you assume both not equal (x,a) and x>a, since the
>> second implies the first? Have you found problematic cases? If so, those
>> should be reported as bugs.
>>
> ------------------------------**---------
> You are correct that I found cases where I needed to insert both
> assumptions to avoid integrate questions.
>
> One case I can find quickly is (using 5.26.0gcl):
> ------------------------------**------------------------
> (%i1) display2d:false$
>
> (%i2) facts();
> (%o2) []
>
> (%i3) assume ( x >= 0, x <= 1 )$
>
> (%i4) integrate (integrate (log (x+y), y, 0, 1), x, 0, 1);
>
> Is x - 1.0 negative or zero?
>
> n;
>
> (%o4) (4*log(2)-3)/2
>
> (%i5) forget( x >= 0, x <= 1)$
>
> (%i6) assume( x >= 0, x < 1, not equal (x, 1));
>
> (%o6) [x >= 0, x < 1, redundant]
>
> (%i7) facts();
>
> (%o7) [ x >= 0, 1 > x]
>
> (%i8) integrate (integrate (log (x+y), y, 0, 1), x, 0, 1);
> (%o8) (4*log(2)-3)/2
>
> (%i9) forget( x >= 0, x < 1, not equal (x,1));
>
> (%o9) [ x >= 0, x < 1, notequal (x, 1)]
>
> (%i10) facts();
> (%o10) []
>
> (%i11) assume (not equal (x,0), x > 0, x < 1, not equal (x, 1));
>
> (%o11) [notequal (x, 0), x > 0, x < 1, redundant]
>
> (%i12) facts();
>
> (%o12) [notequal (x, 0), x > 0, 1 > x]
>
> (%i13) integrate (integrate (log (x+y), y, 0, 1), x, 0, 1);
> (%o13) (4*log(2)-3)/2
> ------------------------------**-----------------
> Although the code considered not equal(x,1) to be "redundant",
> and it was not included in the list of facts(), the method
> avoided the question from integrate.
>
> Ted
>
>