Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Topic: Charlwood Fifty test results
Replies: 16   Last Post: Sep 19, 2013 10:09 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 clicliclic@freenet.de Posts: 1,090 Registered: 4/26/08
Re: Charlwood Fifty test results
Posted: Jul 6, 2013 5:55 AM

Albert Rich schrieb:
>
> Following is a table comparing the results produced by 6 symbolic
> integrators on the Charlwood Fifty test-suite:
>
> Charlwood Fifty Test Results
> # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
> 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2
> 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
> 3 0 0 2 1 0 2 -1
> 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
> 5 1 1 0 1 0 2 0
> 6 2 2 2 0 1 2 0
> 7 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
> 8 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
> 9 2 2 2 1 2 0 2
> 10 2 2 2 1 0 2 0
> [...]
>
> In summary, the column labels and total scores for the 7 systems
> tested are as follows:
>
> 1. 66 Rubi 4.0
> 2. 85 Rubi 4.1
> 3. 75 FriCAS 1.2.1
> 4. 73 Mathematica 9
> 5. 71 Derive 6.1
> 6. 49 Maple 17
> 7. 40 Maxima 5.28.0-2
>

Your results for Mathematica 9.01 (column 4) appear to be incompatible
with Nasser's results for problems 1 to 10 at

<http://www.12000.org/my_notes/ten_hard_integrals/index.htm>

According to Nasser, Mathematica fails entirely on problem 5, and
succeeds on problems 6,7,8,9 only in terms of non-elementary functions
(elliptic integrals). According to your table, Mathematica succeeds
suboptimally on problems 5,7,9 and fails on problems 6,8.

Similarly, Nasser reports Maple 17 to fail on problems 9,10, whereas you
report (column 6) a failure for problem 9 and a full success for problem
10.

Martin.