The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.symbolic

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

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ] Topics: [ Previous | Next ]
Albert D. Rich

Posts: 311
From: Hawaii Island
Registered: 5/30/09
Re: Charlwood Fifty test results
Posted: Jul 6, 2013 4:32 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Friday, July 5, 2013 11:55:54 PM UTC-10, wrote:

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

After having redone the problems in question, I stand by all the grades shown in the Charlwood Fifty test-results table.

On problems 5,7,9 Mathematica returns a mathematically correct antiderivative expressed in terms of elliptic integrals, so they receive the nonoptimal grade of 1. On problems 6,8, Mathematica times-out after 30 seconds on my computer, so they receive a grade of 0, as per the rules given. However if you wait long enough, Mathematica does return a huge, multipage result involving elliptic integrals and the imaginary unit for problems 6,8.

Nasser and I agree that Maple failed to integrate problem 9. On problem 10, I entered the integrand as


whereas he probably entered it as


Because of some bazaar quirk in Maple, it succeeds in integrating the former and not the latter! Perhaps some Maple aficionado can justify, or at least explain, this phenomena...


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.