[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Re: [Axiom-developer] Schaums-Axiom difference

**From**: |
root |

**Subject**: |
Re: [Axiom-developer] Schaums-Axiom difference |

**Date**: |
Wed, 7 May 2008 12:41:41 -0400 |

>*> I see a lot of non-reduced exponents of the form:*
>*> *
>*> a log(z)*
>*> %e *
>
>*This is "by definition" equal to z^a. I'd think it is rather a question of*
>*output aesthetics whether we want to write z^a instead -- I'd say yes, we*
>*should output z^a if a does not have a log factor. For computation I'd believe*
>*that %e^(a*log z) is better, especially because of*
>
>*%e^(log x*log z) = x^log z = z^log x*
Barry Trager has pointed out to me that the integrator always wants
expressions like x^n to be represented as exp(n*log(x)) since the
integration algorithm recurses on the tower of generators involving
exps and logs. The infinite recursion bug is some kind of a bug in
the implementation but not related to simplification.
So, obviously, I don't have a clue. Ah, if only the sources were
literate. We could read what it was intended to do.... sigh.
Tim