Bug in Maxima or I'm missing something?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fluidistic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bug Maxima
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around the functionality of the Maxima computer algebra system, specifically in defining and evaluating functions. The user initially encountered unexpected simplifications when evaluating a complex function involving exponential terms. However, after further attempts, the user was able to reproduce the correct results, indicating that the issue may not be a bug in Maxima but rather a transient error in the user's input or environment. The key takeaway is that Maxima's evaluation can sometimes yield unexpected simplifications, which may require careful examination of the function definitions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with Maxima 5.45.0 syntax for defining functions
  • Understanding of exponential functions and their properties
  • Knowledge of function evaluation and simplification techniques
  • Basic troubleshooting skills in computational software environments
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore advanced function definitions in Maxima 5.45.0
  • Learn about Maxima's simplification functions and their parameters
  • Investigate common pitfalls in function evaluation in Maxima
  • Review documentation on handling transient errors in computational tools
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for mathematicians, physicists, and software developers who utilize Maxima for symbolic computation and need to understand function evaluation intricacies.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
283
I am clueless. Here's the model I tried to follow:
Code:
g(a):=a^2-1;
Code:
f(a,b):=a+g(a)-b;
Code:
f(a,b);
With output
Code:
−b+a^2+a−1
Which is 1)Define a function in terms of some variable(s).
2)Define another function in terms of some variable(s) and in terms of the function defined in 1).
3)Evaluate the function in 2) to see the explicit and eventually simplified form of that function.

I tried this with a more complicated function but the output is troublesome:
1)
Code:
Z(beta, delta, hbar, omega):=exp(-beta*hbar*omega)*((exp(-beta*delta)-1)/(1-exp(-2*beta*hbar*omega))+1/(1-exp(-beta*hbar*omega))^2);
2)
Code:
P_n(beta, delta, hbar, omega,n):=(exp(-beta*(hbar*omega*(1+2*n)+delta)))/Z(beta, delta, hbar, omega);
3)
Code:
P_n(beta, delta, hbar, omega,n);
with output
Code:
e^(beta*hbar*omega−beta*(hbar*(2*n+1)*omega+delta))
which reduces to
Code:
e^(−2*beta*hbar*n*omega−beta*delta)
which is way too simple.
On my draft I've got a more "complex" function than this ultra reduction and there's absolutely no way to get what Maxima got. It's almost as if Maxima did not divide by Z(beta, etc) when evaluating 3).

Am I missing something? Or Maxima is bugged?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry guys, I am unable to reproduce this behavior anymore, I now get the correct result.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K