Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: The Charlwood Fifty
Replies: 52   Last Post: Jun 24, 2013 10:24 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Nasser Abbasi Posts: 6,677 Registered: 2/7/05
Re: The Charlwood Fifty, another Macsyma result
Posted: Jun 11, 2013 9:09 AM

On 6/11/2013 6:37 AM, clicliclic@freenet.de wrote:

>
> For FriCAS you have listed problem #5 as both "did" and "did not".
>

opps, sorry, typo. Fricas "did not" do 5.

> It would be informative if you could signal non-elementary answers by
> putting the corresponding problem numbers in parentheses, say.

Sure. A quick look shows that of those solved, #5 by Rubi
and Maple had non-elementary anti-derivative (Elliptic function) in
them. This is the one Mathematica, Sage and FriCAS did not

In #6,#7,#8,#9 Mathematica gave non-elementary anti-derivative (also using
Elliptic functions).

If I overlooked something, please feel free to correct, all
other anti-derivative are using elementary function as far as I
see (exp, log, radicals, trig and inverse trigs and +,-,/,*)

Here is an updated score table using your proposed notation:

1. Mathematica: did 1,2,3,4,(6),(7),(8),(9),10 did not: 5
2. Maple: did 1,2,3,4,(5),6,7,8 did not: 9,10
3. Rubi4: did 2,4,(5),6,7,8,9,10 did not: 1,3
4. Sage: did: 1,2,3,7,9 did not: 4,5,6,8,10
5. Fricas: did 1,2,3,4,6,7,10 did not: 5,8,9

ps. I moved Sage's 4 from the "did" to the "did not" since the
answer still contained another integral in it, so to be
fair to other CAS's it should have been counted as "did not".
sorry Sage :(

thanks,
--Nasser