On 3/20/2009 5:20:43 PM, Tom_Gutman wrote:
>I don't know Maple either, and
>several items make no sense.
>But if Maple fails on that
>construct, that could explain
>why MC11's symbolic processor
>fails -- it uses Maple.
>
>I disagree that that form is
>bad practice. Again, if it
>does not work in Maple, it is
>a problem with Maple.
>Mathematically it is quite
>sound. The variable of
>integration is a bound
>variable, it's name is
>arbitrary and should have no
>relation to any other variable
>of the same name. The limits
>are outside the scope of the
>variable of integration, and
>should be evaluated in the
>environment of the integral.
>
>Looking at your Maple results,
>after the first definition of
>a I see the result for F being
>correct and the result for G
>being incorrect. Unless
>Maple's definition for
>a(t):=... is extremely strange
>(and non-standard) a(u) should
>be 2*u� and G(t) should
>have been evaluated, not left
>as an integral.
G remains unevaluated, so the answer must to be correct.
>The results
>after the second definition of
>a are completely weird.
>Somehow F still uses the first
>definition of a while G uses
>the second. Makes absolutely
>no sense to me.
This example have sense? What happen in mc14 with this constructions?
Regards. Alvaro.