-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 626
solve() can return undefined points as "solutions" #2617
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
comment:1
Is this a bug in Maxima? In that case we should report those to them? This also seams like a fairly serious issue, so I am elevating this to critical. Cheers, Michael |
comment:2
This is a Maxima bug as of 5.16.3, and has been reported there as 2845005 (see http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2845005&group_id=4933&atid=104933). |
comment:3
Perhaps related issue is also that the solving acot(x) == 0 ends with error message "The number 0 isn't in the domain of cot" The online tool Mathatmatical Assistant on Web ( http://user.mendelu.cz/marik/maw/index.php?lang=en&form=main ) has a wrapper for maxima's solve ( http://mathassistant.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mathassistant/maw/common/maw_solve.mac?revision=1.14&view=markup ) I hope, it could be used also in Sage. I'll try it, hope within a week. |
comment:4
Replying to @robert-marik:
No, this is an appropriate error message (it's from Maxima, not Sage). There are no solutions to acot(x)==0, at least over the reals (and presumably over the complex field as well?). Now that we know about that error, it would be easy to put a catch in for something like that error message and return But this is unrelated to the issue in the ticket, which is a genuine Maxima bug, as far as I can tell. |
comment:5
Replying to @kcrisman:
This will be addressed (not the main point of this ticket) in the patch for #7745. The main point is still a bug in Maxima 5.20.1. |
comment:6
I had an idea to introduce new option to solve, which
The problem in this approach is, that for example ln(0)=-Infinity in Sage and so x=0 will be still reported as a solution of x/ln(x)=0. The problem could be solved by substituting values in Maxima and not in Sage, but I am still thinking on some cleaner solution. And still have no idea what should be returned as solution of x*ln(x-3) == 0. Distinguish in this new option, if the user works in real domain or in complex doman? Something like check_domain = False, True, or 'real'? Any idea? |
comment:7
As it turns out, to_poly_solve can handle this sort of thing (see in Maxima the share/contrib/rtest_to_poly_solver.mac line 1092). But we would have to figure out a way to interpret the if statements properly (for instance, to note that twice an integer plus one is not zero).
|
Stopgaps: todo |
comment:14
SO, has this issue been fixed yet? What of kcrisman and robert.marik's suggestions? Also is there a reason that there is no branch to edit? |
comment:15
Presumably not fixed. No branch because no one has posted one yet - if you have a fix you can be the first to post a branch! |
comment:16
kcrisman, in your post (from 7 years ago) you had mentioned to_poly_solve in maxima's share/contrib. It's been a while since then, so it is not located there anymore. I couldn't find it anywhere in Maxima's source on github though, so i wasn't sure if it was still used at all. Does sage/maxima use it at all? I've been looking at several old tickets, all involving solving equations. One was using find_root, which uses scipy, and the other had to do with solve just like this one. I think it would be best to just have one, no? As far as I can tell, they do about the same thing, and they both have issues. On a similar note, if to_poly_solve resolves this issue, then maybe we should use that for all equation solving? |
comment:17
We definitely have that method and it is still in Maxima. Looks like it moved to https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/code/ci/master/tree/share/to_poly_solve/. However, On the other hand, if sympy can now solve everything Maxima does, one could try to switch the default algorithm to use that instead. I don't know if we're at that point, though. |
Commit: |
comment:20
On 9.1.beta5 we get something else than the ticket description
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:22
Your solution is somehow complicated and provides a wrong answer. Why not prefer
|
Reviewer: Vincent Delecroix |
comment:23
Replying to @videlec:
the syntax you are providing is not user friendly. I would prefer the previous syntax. |
comment:24
Replying to @videlec:
I think the syntax simplicity can be judged in the later stages, I do want to ask are you able to obtain the answer from this? because I can't seem to be getting this work, even after a certain modification, such as additional functions for testing and new variable. |
comment:25
Replying to @Shlokatadistance:
I don't understand your question. |
comment:26
Replying to @videlec:
Ahh my bad, I was trying to obtain a more numeric based answer, I did see that the second statement did resemble the solution |
comment:27
Replying to @Shlokatadistance:
Ideally, it should be possible to convert it to the parametrized set |
comment:28
Yes exactly, from what I reckon the procedure is simply returning like a set, and I think that has to do with the way the conditions were defined. I think by providing a few other cases on the same will help us resolve this issue, something along the lines of
Something along these lines , of course this is just a suggestion |
comment:31
Moving this ticket to 9.4, as it seems unlikely that it will be merged in 9.3, which is in the release candidate stage |
comment:32
Setting a new milestone for this ticket based on a cursory review. |
comment:33
Stalled in |
Consider the following examples (reported by Dean Moore here: http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/5555e780a76b3343#)
None of these functions are even defined at x=0, so that should not be returned as a solution. (The first two functions can be extended to x=0 by taking limits, in which case x=0 is a solution to the first one but not the second; the third function has a vertical asymptote at x=0.)
Component: calculus
Stopgaps: todo
Author: Matt Torrence
Branch/Commit: u/gh-Torrencem/2617_solve_check_domain @
2cc6fd5
Reviewer: Vincent Delecroix
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/2617
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: