[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: Nasty bug in Integrate (version 5.0)
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg45981] Re: [mg45958] Re: Nasty bug in Integrate (version 5.0)
*From*: Dr Bob <drbob at bigfoot.com>
*Date*: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:20:57 -0500 (EST)
*References*: <200401281019.FAA18530@smc.vnet.net> <bvapk6$aat$1@smc.vnet.net> <200401300917.EAA05062@smc.vnet.net> <68A351B5-5333-11D8-94B3-00039311C1CC@mimuw.edu.pl>
*Reply-to*: drbob at bigfoot.com
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
>> if you are going to use it only for problems that are trivial to do by
>> hand what is the point of using it at all?
Why use it only for the ones that are too big to check? That way, we don't
know whether we're wrong or not. We wouldn't know about this bug, for
instance.
Bobby
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:48:47 +0100, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
wrote:
> But then if you are going to use it only for problems that are trivial
> to do by hand what is the point of using it at all? Computers are
> supposed to be good at computing, we are supposed to be good at thinking.
>
> Andrzej
>
>
> On 30 Jan 2004, at 10:17, Bobby R. Treat wrote:
>
>> The only reason we know the answer is wrong is BECAUSE it's trivial by
>> hand. It makes no sense to trust Mathematica for problems that are too
>> hard to
>> check.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote in message
>> news:<bvapk6$aat$1 at smc.vnet.net>...
>>> Mathematica seems to get lost in the large number of checks that it
>>> attempts to perform to find the exact conditions (in the complex
>>> plane) for the convergence of this integral. Even if a and b are
>>> assumed to be real there is a problem that 0 may lie in between them.
>>> Only in the case when you specify that the limits are both positive or
>>> both negative you get the correct answers because Mathematica can
>>> quickly deal with this problem.
>>> If you really want to see how much checking Mathematica attempts to do
>>> just evaluate:
>>>
>>> Trace[Integrate[1/x + x^c, {x, a, b}], TraceInternal->True]
>>>
>>> and be prepared to wait and obtain a huge output.
>>>
>>> Anyway, this is clearly a bug. However, it is in general a good idea
>>> not to ask a computer program to do what is trivial to do by hand,
>>> which in this case means evaluating a definite rather than an
>>> indefinite integral. Note that
>>>
>>>
>>> Integrate[1/x + x^c, x]
>>>
>>> x^(c + 1)/(c + 1) + Log[x]
>>>
>>> and the answer is obtained instantly. If this is what you really were
>>> after (you can substitute in the limits for example by using:
>>>
>>>
>>> Subtract @@ (Integrate[1/x + x^c, x] /. x -> #1 & ) /@ {b, a}
>>>
>>>
>>> -(a^(c + 1)/(c + 1)) - Log[a] + Log[b] + b^(c + 1)/(c + 1)
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course this now makes sense only under certain conditions on a,b and
>>> c which you now have to determine yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Jan 2004, at 11:19, Math User wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if this has been discussed before. Could anyone explain why
>>>> Mathematica 5.0 is ignoring the term 1/x in the first and second
>>>> answers?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In[1]:= Integrate[1/x + x^c, {x, a, b}]
>>>>
>>>> Out[1]= (-a^(1 + c) + b^(1 + c))/(1 + c)
>>>>
>>>> In[2]:= Integrate[1/x + x^c, {x, a, b}, Assumptions -> {Element[a,
>>>> Reals], Element[b, Reals]}]
>>>>
>>>> Out[2]= (-a^(1 + c) + b^(1 + c))/(1 + c)
>>>>
>>>> In[3]:= Integrate[1/x + x^c, {x, a, b}, Assumptions -> {a > 0, b > 0}]
>>>>
>>>> Out[3]= (-a^(1 + c) + b^(1 + c))/(1 + c) + Log[b/a]
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re: Nasty bug in Integrate (version 5.0)**
Next by Date:
**AW: Re: Nasty bug in Integrate (version 5.0)**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Nasty bug in Integrate (version 5.0)**
Next by thread:
**Re: Re: Nasty bug in Integrate (version 5.0)**
| |