Re: how to explain this weird effect? Integrate

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg46411] Re: how to explain this weird effect? Integrate*From*: nma124 at hotmail.com (steve_H)*Date*: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 07:05:44 -0500 (EST)*References*: <c0qjgq$ka6$1@smc.vnet.net>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<c0qjgq$ka6$1 at smc.vnet.net>... > On 2/14/04 at 10:19 PM, nma124 at hotmail.com (steve_H) wrote: > > >Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote in message > >news:<c0kr0g$fo8$1 at smc.vnet.net>... > > >>Quite apart from that, the order of evaluation is a key issue in > >>functional programming languages and there are lots of cases where > >>Mathematica will produce different answers if you change the order > >>of evaluation even if "mathematically" you are computing the same > >>thing. > > >Ok, that is my main point then. All what I was saying is that we > >are looking at results that are artifacts of artificial programming > >side-effects, and are not results due to mathematics proper. > hi Bill and Andzej; thanks both for your inputs. Bill said: > But these effect you label "artificial side-effects", are no > different that what a human might achieve. That is if you don't > see a way to re-arrange things or do things in a different order > you likely to get the same results as Mathematica does. > Correct. This is IF you (a human) do not see a way to re-arrange things. But I expect a computer program to see a way to re-arrange things. After all, it is supposed to be much better at doing these things. > Take the example you used when you started this thread. If you > gave the results of the integral with the same denominator, > m^2 - n^2, a human, they either have the same problem with > division by zero when m = n or must take the appropriate limit. > Taking the appropriate limit is an additional step. It is no > different when using Mathematica. But that is exactly my point. I wanted Mathematica to act as if it was a human. (A very smart human at that). All what I am saying is that Mathematica should have taken that extra step without me having to tell. The way I look at it, is that when I tell a computer algebra program to solve X, then I expect the program to do what it can and apply any number of different steps and 'tricks' to solve X. I do not have to tell it to do step 1 first, then step 2, then if it can't do step 2, then try this trick first, and then do step 2, etc... All what iam saying is that taking the limit in this case is NOT an additional step becuase it would have lead to the solution I wanted. I guess it is a design issue. Some folks here do not seem to agree with this, but I think this is how a computer algebra system should work. So, may be we should drop this subject and leave it at that. We agree to diagree. regards, Steve

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: how to explain this weird effect? Integrate***From:*withoff@wolfram.com

**RE: Shared Functions**

**Simplify and Gather Terms in a Polynomial**

**Re: how to explain this weird effect? Integrate**

**Re: Re: how to explain this weird effect? Integrate**