I agree. I wouldn't expect that 0*inf is 0 or inf-inf is 0.
Can someone explain what is the rationale behind this?
Is there an option to change this behaviour?
Best regards,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Evgeniy Maevskiy
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:31 AM
To: maxima at math.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: [Maxima] erf(inf)
Not only this. We have also
limit(1/zeroa-1/zeroa) => 0
I.e. zeroa is the certain infinitesimal while usually in mathematics
o(1) is equivalence class of infinitesimals.
I think that erf(inf)=1 and atan(inf)=%pi/2, but 0*inf is 0*inf and not 0. Similarly, inf-inf is inf-inf, not 0.
Another question whether we should assume that inf-inf=inf+minf. I think that is(inf-inf=inf+minf)=>false, but is(equal(inf-inf,inf+minf))=>true.
I'm sorry that interfered.
23.05.2012 7:46, Raymond Toy ?????:
> As mentioned a few days ago, maxima automatically simplifies erf(inf)
> to 1. And also atan(inf) to %pi/2. This seems intentional, but can
> lead to interesting things like
>
> (atan(inf)-%pi/2)*inf => 0
> but
> limit(atan(x)-%pi/2)*x,x,inf) => -1
>
> as Stavros mentioned.
>
> Therefore, I think we should change this behavior so that erf(inf) is
> erf(inf) and not 1.
>
> But since this seems intentional, I'm soliciting opinions on this.
> This also affects erfc, erfi, gamma_incomplete, fresnel_s and fresnel_c.
> There might be others as well.
>
> Ray
_______________________________________________
Maxima mailing list
Maxima at math.utexas.edu
http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima