Timeline for Why does Integrate return a solution that is not defined at a particular point when it actually is well defined at that point?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2015 at 19:28 | comment | added | J. M.'s missing motivation♦ | @Semiclassical, unless they've gotten around to handling elliptic integrals through the Carlson route, I'd doubt there's been any improvement. | |
| Mar 2, 2015 at 3:17 | comment | added | Semiclassical | Has there been any improvement in how Mathematica handles symbolic elliptic integrals since this answer was published? Manipulating elliptic integrals as above is tedious albeit straightforward, so a useful workaround (besides using direct numeric arguments) would be nice... | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 10:00 | vote | accept | Simd | ||
| Apr 16, 2013 at 9:51 | comment | added | J. M.'s missing motivation♦ |
@Anush, from what I've seen, definite numeric arguments are handled rather differently from generic parameters; it is then not too surprising that the result you get from specific numerical parameters may be something completely different from what you get if only generic parameters are there. You might by the way want to look at the Assuming[] function, which does allow some level of control.
|
|
| Apr 16, 2013 at 7:28 | comment | added | Simd | Thanks. I suppose I have very (unreasonably?) high expectations of Mathematica given how mature it is relative to what I might have expected from versions 1-5, say. In particular, given that it can perform the integral at $y=1$ perfectly I wonder why it isn't a good idea for it to try to before it returns the incomplete answer. So I suppose my complaint is that it actually knows how to provide a complete solution but doesn't. | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 6:36 | history | answered | J. M.'s missing motivation♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |