[GiNaC-devel] Power laws
Vladimir V. Kisil
kisilv at maths.leeds.ac.uk
Tue Oct 15 10:06:44 CEST 2019
Dear Richard,
Thanks for reminding me the exp(x)/exp(x) cancellation and other
issues. I am going to look on all of this together, but it will take
some time (hopefully not another 10 years).
Best wishes,
Vladimir
--
Vladimir V. Kisil http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~kisilv/
Book: Geometry of Mobius Transformations http://goo.gl/EaG2Vu
Software: Geometry of cycles http://moebinv.sourceforge.net/
Jupyter (Colab): https://github.com/vvkisil/MoebInv-notebooks
Jupyter (CodeOcean): https://codeocean.com/capsule/7952650/tree
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:23:21 +0200, "Richard B. Kreckel" <kreckel at in.terlu.de> said:
RK> Dear Vladimir, On 10/14/19 4:57 PM, Vladimir V. Kisil wrote:
>> I want to celebrate the 10th anniversary of this patch
>>
>> https://www.ginac.de/pipermail/ginac-devel/2009-October/001675.html
>>
>> by its re-submission. Since it was not objected since the
>> original submission by anyone, it may be the time now to add this
>> basic calculus-textbook rule to GiNaC.
RK> Well, after celebrating this patch, we should discuss it
RK> breaking check/exam_paranoia.cpp:217.
RK> That particular check has nothing to do with the exp() function,
RK> so we could re-write it in terms of Li2() or some other function
RK> and be done with it.
RK> But François Maltey objected about exp(x)/exp(x) not eval'ing to
RK> 1 any more:
RK> https://www.ginac.de/pipermail/ginac-devel/2009-October/001680.html
RK> And, somehow, that should be addressed, I guess. I propose
RK> writing generic functions outside the automatic eval system
RK> along these lines https://www.ginac.de/FAQ.html#treetraverse
RK> searching for common arguments of exp() which may be
RK> combined. Would you like to venture?
RK> -richy. _______________________________________________
RK> GiNaC-devel mailing list GiNaC-devel at ginac.de
RK> https://www.cebix.net/mailman/listinfo/ginac-devel
More information about the GiNaC-devel
mailing list