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@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@ginac.de RK> https://www.cebix.net/mailman/listinfo/ginac-devel