[Maxima] constants, simplification, numerical evaluation
Stavros Macrakis
macrakis at alum.mit.edu
Sat Mar 15 03:24:37 CDT 2008
Treating exp(x) as an elementary function distinct from %e^x is a terrible idea.
It would simplify numer, but would complicate many other cases.
exp(x)-%e^x => 0
log(exp(x)) => x
exp(x+y)/exp(x) => exp(y)
factor(exp(2*x)-1)
integrate
radcan
limit
etc. etc.
I suppose you could uniformly represent a^b as exp(b*log(a)) but then
you'd have to change everything in Maxima that handled "^" to handle
exp instead. Do you really want to represent x^2 as exp(2*log(x))?
-s
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like we could make Maxima simpler and more consistent
> by treating exp(x) like other "elementary" functions (trig, hyperbolic,
> etc) and applying to exp(x) the same rules for numeric computation
> as for the other functions. Instead of simplifying exp(x) to %e^x,
> exp(x) should be preserved. With no %e in sight during simplification,
> we can be rid of %enumer which is nothing but trouble anyway,
> and get useful and predictable numerical behavior without making
> up more special cases.
>
> Robert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>
More information about the Maxima
mailing list