Wow I'm surprised that it works like that, cool..
Thanks!
On Monday, February 04, 2013 11:59:03 pm Barton Willis wrote:
> Maybe declare(f,real), instead of declare(f(x), real? Example
>
> (%i8) declare(f,real);
> (%o8) done
>
> (%i9) realpart(f(x));
> (%o9) f(x)
>
> --Barton
>
> ________________________________________
> From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu [maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] on
> behalf of Nijso Beishuizen [nijso at hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 04,
> 2013 16:28
> To: maxima at math.utexas.edu
> Subject: realpart(f(x))
>
> Dear all,
>
> Sorry to ask a lot of question that are maybe obvious if you have worked
> with maxima for a longer time than I have...
>
> Anyway, I am running a database to test my implementation of Kovacic'
> algorithm and for one of the cases (kamke 2.78) I get as a result something
> including the integral of realpart(f(x)) and something with the integral of
> imagpart(f(x)). I want to get rid of the imagpart by imposing that f(x) is
> a real function
>
> I think declare only accepts atoms, so I cannot do declare(f(x),real).
> I can also not do depends(f,x) and then declare(f,real) because
> unfortunately integration doesn't know about dependencies.
> Another possibility is to simply use substitution, but I would prefer
> something more elegant if it exists.
> Any suggestions?
>
> Best,
> Nijso
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima