

last edited 8 years ago by test1 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
Editor:
Time: 2007/12/20 11:33:13 GMT8 

Note: 
changed:  integrate((x^2)*(%e^(x^2)),x=0..%plusInfinity) does not give sqrt(%pi)/4. From BobMcElrath Wed Dec 22 21:57:46 0600 2004 From: Bob McElrath Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:57:46 0600 Subject: (new) MessageID: <20041223035753.GD8990@mcelrath.org> InReplyTo: <200412222122510600@page.axiomdeveloper.org> anonymous [mathaction@axiomdeveloper.org] wrote: > integrate((x^2)*(%e^(x^2)),x=0..%plusInfinity) does not give > sqrt(%pi)/4. The answer it gives is correct (unless there is a new bug introduced that is not on my axiom 0.200408311). The gamma function has sqrt(pi) for halfinteger values. \begin{axiom} integrate(x^2*(exp(x^2)), x=0..%plusInfinity) Gamma(3/2)/2::Float sqrt(%pi)/4::Float \end{axiom} What I don't understand is why the integration result is so hard to convert to a Float. Appending '::Float' to the 'integrate()' command fails. Why? If I type 'Gamma(3/2)/2' by hand it has no problem. From BobMcElrath Wed Dec 22 22:13:50 0600 2004 From: Bob McElrath Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:13:50 0600 Subject: (new) MessageID: <20041223041351.GE8990@mcelrath.org> InReplyTo: <20041223035753.GD8990@mcelrath.org> Actually the text output is:: _ 3  () 2 (28)  2 Type: Union(f1: OrderedCompletion Expression Integer,...) which I assume is the Gamma function, but the tex is converted improperly:: {{{\overline {\ }}} \left( {{3 \over 2}} \right)} \over 2 \leqno(29) i.e. clearly does *not* contain '\Gamma'. From BillPage Thu Dec 23 01:32:23 0600 2004 From: Bill Page Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:32:23 0600 Subject: {{\overline {\ } == Gamma? MessageID: <200412230132230600@page.axiomdeveloper.org> It is possible to convert this peculiar monogram to \Gamma for display but I think the problem is more fundamental. Clearly AXIOM does not have a consistent and complete representation of the Gamma function. I think integrate should at least return a Gamma that can be converted to Float or something of type Expression Integer like sqrt(%pi)/4. But it seems that the current Gamma function always agressively returns a DoubleFloat value. This doesn't seem very useful to me for symbolic computations. From BobMcElrath Thu Dec 23 01:42:39 0600 2004 From: Bob McElrath Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:42:39 0600 Subject: {{\overline {\ } == Gamma? MessageID: <20041223074250.GG8990@mcelrath.org> InReplyTo: <200412230132230600@page.axiomdeveloper.org> Bill, What is the type that is returned there? How can I get axiom to print the entire type rather than '...'? I think therein lies the problem. Note that \begin{axiom} integrate(x^2*(exp(x^2)), x=0..%plusInfinity)::InputForm \end{axiom} seems correct. P.S. IssueTracker + axiom rules. Having axiom right here is so powerful... I will have to pay more attention to IssueTracker. I was half thinking to strip it when (if) I fork zwiki. Right now IssueTracker is a big hack that can't be uninstalled... From kratt6 Wed Jan 19 08:34:21 0600 2005 From: kratt6 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:34:21 0600 Subject: this is not a math bug, only the output is not as nice as it could be MessageID: <200501190834210600@page.axiomdeveloper.org> Category: Axiom Mathematics => Axiom User Interface Severity: normal => minor From BillPage Wed Jan 19 08:54:51 0600 2005 From: Bill Page Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:54:51 0600 Subject: I think this is a math bug! MessageID: <200501190854510600@page.axiomdeveloper.org> I disagree. There is something fundamentally wrong here. The result of \begin{axiom} integrate(x^2*(exp(x^2)), x=0..%plusInfinity) \end{axiom} Not only prints oddly without conversion to proper LaTeX but also it is not actually recognized "mathematically" as Gamma(). Further, there is something wrong with the implementation of Gamma() itself because it only works numerically and is of no use symbolically. It seems like there are two separate Gamma functions. The one produced by the integration is "symbolic" but does not seem to be connected to any appropriate logic. From BillPage Wed Jan 19 09:20:12 0600 2005 From: Bill Page Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:20:12 0600 Subject: this is not a mathbug, only the output is not as nice as it could be MessageID: <003d01c4fe3a$6c918190$6501a8c0@Asus> InReplyTo: <200501190834210600@page.axiomdeveloper.org> > > Category: Axiom Mathematics => Axiom User Interface > Severity: normal => minor > :) This shows where your priorities are Martin! But, thanks. Some User Interface issue is involved here, but I don't think that it is quite correct to classify it this way. The issue is really what symbollic computations are possible in Axiom involving Gamma? I would say that this is more of a deficiency in the mathmatics.
integrate((x^2)*(%e^(x^2)),x=0..%plusInfinity) does not give sqrt(%pi)/4.
integrate((x^2)*(%e^(x^2)),x=0..%plusInfinity) does not give sqrt(%pi)/4.
The answer it gives is correct (unless there is a new bug introduced that is not on my axiom 0.200408311). The gamma function has sqrt(pi) for halfinteger values.
axiomintegrate(x^2*(exp(x^2)), x=0..%plusInfinity)
(1) 
axiomGamma(3/2)/2::Float
(2) 
axiomsqrt(%pi)/4::Float
(3) 
What I don't understand is why the integration result is so hard to
convert to a Float. Appending ::Float
to the integrate()
command
fails. Why? If I type Gamma(3/2)/2
by hand it has no problem.
_ 3  () 2 (28)  2 Type: Union(f1: OrderedCompletion Expression Integer,...)
which I assume is the Gamma function, but the tex is converted improperly:
{{{\overline {\ }}} \left( {{3 \over 2}} \right)} \over 2 \leqno(29)
i.e. clearly does not contain \Gamma
.
...
?
I think therein lies the problem. Note that
axiomintegrate(x^2*(exp(x^2)), x=0..%plusInfinity)::InputForm
(4) 
seems correct.
P.S. IssueTracker? + axiom rules. Having axiom right here is so powerful... I will have to pay more attention to IssueTracker?. I was half thinking to strip it when (if) I fork zwiki. Right now IssueTracker? is a big hack that can't be uninstalled...
axiomintegrate(x^2*(exp(x^2)), x=0..%plusInfinity)
(5) 
Not only prints oddly without conversion to proper LaTeX? but also it is not actually recognized "mathematically" as Gamma().
Further, there is something wrong with the implementation of Gamma() itself because it only works numerically and is of no use symbolically. It seems like there are two separate Gamma functions. The one produced by the integration is "symbolic" but does not seem to be connected to any appropriate logic.
Category: Axiom Mathematics => Axiom User Interface Severity: normal => minor
:)
This shows where your priorities are Martin! But, thanks.
Some User Interface issue is involved here, but I don't think that it is quite correct to classify it this way. The issue is really what symbollic computations are possible in Axiom involving Gamma? I would say that this is more of a deficiency in the mathmatics.