Wanna see some good ass kickin'?

Go to "www.wolframalpha.com," the purveyors of the mightily expensive ($$$$)
commercial Mathematica software and enter the following:

integrate (((-4*x-8)*log(x)+(-2*x^2-4*x))/(3*x*exp(2*log(x)+x)^2-x), x)

To save y'all the trouble, it is already entered at this link:

<https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=integrate+%28%28%28-4*x-8%29*log%28x%29%2B%28-2*x%5E2-4*x%29%29%2F%283*x*exp%282*log%28x%29%2Bx%29%5E2-x%29%2C+x%29>

What happens? Nothing. Zip. Nada.

The billion-dollar commercial program can't do it.

Now try the same with GNU/Linux Fricas:

http://wiki.fricas.org/FriCASSpecialIntegration#eq19

No problem. Fricas does the job hands down.

How's that for some serious fuckin' ass kickin'?

Brother, if you aren't using GNU/Linux exclusively then you are seriously
fucked in the head.

On 1/26/2024 10:05 AM, Larry Pietraskiewicz wrote:

> Wanna see some good ass kickin'?
>
> Go to "www.wolframalpha.com," the purveyors of the mightily expensive ($$$$)
> commercial Mathematica software and enter the following:
>
> integrate (((-4*x-8)*log(x)+(-2*x^2-4*x))/(3*x*exp(2*log(x)+x)^2-x), x)
>
> To save y'all the trouble, it is already entered at this link:
>
> <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=integrate+%28%28%28-4*x-8%29*log%28x%29%2B%28-2*x%5E2-4*x%29%29%2F%283*x*exp%282*log%28x%29%2Bx%29%5E2-x%29%2C+x%29>
>
> What happens? Nothing. Zip. Nada.
>
> The billion-dollar commercial program can't do it.

Hey dunce, give it 10-15 seconds to pop up the result. Then hit the
'Plain Text' button

Copyable Plain Text:
integral_1^∞ (-4 x - 2 x^2 + (-8 - 4 x) log(x))/(-x + 3 e^(2 x) x^5)
dx≈-0.0689765...

Wolfram Language code:
NIntegrate[(-4 x - 2 x^2 + (-8 - 4 x) Log[x])/(-x + 3 E^(2 x) x^5), {x,
1, Infinity}]

Wolfram Language plain text output:
-0.0689765

or if you hit 'more digits'
-0.0689764706633734425097941783544740632031604892124804945997854779399261809267374572186632870966155078789669620898445934957253618457944520109577087642903

On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 10:14:32 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>
> Hey dunce, give it 10-15 seconds to pop up the result. Then hit the
> 'Plain Text' button
>
> Wolfram Language code:
> NIntegrate[(-4 x - 2 x^2 + (-8 - 4 x) Log[x])/(-x + 3 E^(2 x) x^5), {x,
> 1, Infinity}]
>

YOU are the fucking goddamned dunce.

Nobody asked for that DEFINITE integral. Nobody asked for those limits, 1 -> infinity.

The problem is to find the INDEFINITE integral and all it could do was spit
back the original problem which means TOTAL FAIL.

Aren't you getting sick and tired of always making a complete idiotic ass of yourself?

Man, you are genuinely fucking STUPID.

On 1/26/2024 9:05 AM, Lord Master wrote:
> <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=integrate+%28%28%28-4*x-8%29*log%28x%29%2B%28-2*x%5E2-4*x%29%29%2F%283*x*exp%282*log%28x%29%2Bx%29%5E2-x%29%2C+x%29>

I can do that with hand in just 5 minutes. Well, with the Schaum's math
handbook by my side :)

On 1/26/2024 9:05 AM, Lord Master wrote:
> Now try the same with GNU/Linux Fricas:
>
> http://wiki.fricas.org/FriCASSpecialIntegration#eq19
>
> No problem. Fricas does the job hands down.

Wait a sec. Can Fricas express the math output using nothing but ascii?
If so, can one have a standalone Fricas app?

If so, then it would have immensely fruitful use in usenet math and
physics communication!

Lower down in the above page, it seems that it can use multiple lines
(as many lines as needed) to express math formulas with pure ascii
characters.

On 1/26/2024 9:37 AM, Lord Master wrote:
> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 10:14:32 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
>>
>> Hey dunce, give it 10-15 seconds to pop up the result. Then hit the
>> 'Plain Text' button
>>
>> Wolfram Language code:
>> NIntegrate[(-4 x - 2 x^2 + (-8 - 4 x) Log[x])/(-x + 3 E^(2 x) x^5), {x,
>> 1, Infinity}]
>>
>
> YOU are the fucking goddamned dunce.
>
> Nobody asked for that DEFINITE integral. Nobody asked for those limits, 1 -> infinity.
>
> The problem is to find the INDEFINITE integral and all it could do was spit
> back the original problem which means TOTAL FAIL.
>
> Aren't you getting sick and tired of always making a complete idiotic ass of yourself?
>
> Man, you are genuinely fucking STUPID.
>

He probably doesn't even know the difference between definite and
indefinite integrals.

If that's really the case, then it raises the possibility that he _did_
just study music in college :)

On 1/26/2024 5:22 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 1/26/2024 9:05 AM, Lord Master wrote:
>> <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=integrate+%28%28%28-4*x-8%29*log%28x%29%2B%28-2*x%5E2-4*x%29%29%2F%283*x*exp%282*log%28x%29%2Bx%29%5E2-x%29%2C+x%29>
>
>
> I can do that with hand in just 5 minutes. Well, with the Schaum's math
> handbook by my side :)

By the way, I still have the original that I bought in 1978 from
university bookstore :-) It's full of additional notes. Now it's buried
in some box in the attic.

Last time I took a look inside, the pencil notes I had made were still
mostly intact, but the ballpoint pen remarks I'd made had turned into
wide greasy marking, mostly obscuring what I had put down.

Lesson of this wonderful Friday evening chat: If you are making notes
inside a book that you will still read decades later, do them in pencil!
Never a ballpoint pen.

Or could be that it was the fault of the paper type. Schaum's wonderful
series of reference scientific books always were printed with the
cheapest fucking type of paper you could put your hands on. I don't know
why. Even in elementary schools, I avoided buying such notebooks, always
opting for the better quality papers.

On 1/26/2024 9:37 AM, Lord Master wrote:
> Nobody asked for that DEFINITE integral. Nobody asked for those limits, 1 -> infinity.

It _was_ a desperate result, wasn't it. Bad advertisement for
Mathematica right inside the page to advertise it. The software, not
knowing what to do (within limits allowed for online use, I hope!),
resorted to do it numerically instead, and for that, it needed to have
limits on the integral, so it invented them. Hehe :)

Then that guy, Carpentier, objects my suspicions for stuff others have
put together.

It all points to one thing. They've never had to do something that was
of great importance to them. They either wrote their programs for others
at work, or just solved baby problems.

On 1/26/2024 5:22 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 1/26/2024 9:05 AM, Lord Master wrote:
>> <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=integrate+%28%28%28-4*x-8%29*log%28x%29%2B%28-2*x%5E2-4*x%29%29%2F%283*x*exp%282*log%28x%29%2Bx%29%5E2-x%29%2C+x%29>
>
>
> I can do that with hand in just 5 minutes. Well, with the Schaum's math
> handbook by my side :)

Nah, I looked more closely. It would take me at least an hour, and then
at the end of it I may have hit a series method which would take a day
to review and fresh up before continuing. It is a nasty integral. I'm
almost sure one would have to use series.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:36:16 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> Wait a sec. Can Fricas express the math output using nothing but ascii?
> If so, can one have a standalone Fricas app?
>
> If so, then it would have immensely fruitful use in usenet math and
> physics communication!
>

Yes, it can. So too can Maxima. It's called "pretty printing."

But regarding Usenet communication, the Unicode math symbols are
allowed in messages and a quality Usenet client will have the
necessary fonts to display them.

∫ sin(x^3) dx

∂f/∂x

The only problem is that Unicode itself does not provide for
typesetting (i.e. super- and subscripts, font sizing, etc.).

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:21:55 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 1/26/2024 9:37 AM, Lord Master wrote:
>> Nobody asked for that DEFINITE integral. Nobody asked for those limits, 1 -> infinity.
>
>
> It _was_ a desperate result, wasn't it. Bad advertisement for
> Mathematica right inside the page to advertise it. The software, not
> knowing what to do (within limits allowed for online use, I hope!),
> resorted to do it numerically instead, and for that, it needed to have
> limits on the integral, so it invented them. Hehe :)
>

W0lfram Alpha is just a web interface to the Math3matica engine plus
some other doodads.

An associate of mine has the actual Math3matica program (which costs
about 2000USD) and I ran the integral directly through there:

Integrate [((-4*x - 8)*Log[x] + (-2*x^2 - 4*x))/(3*x*Exp[2*Log[x] + x]^2 - x), x]

It just hangs. It's been about 5 minutes and no answer yet and so
I just terminated the kernel (math engine).

With FriCAS, the answer is produced in about 1 second:

************** Monospaced Font Required ******************

(1) -> integrate (((-4*x-8)*log(x)+(-2*x^2-4*x))/(3*x*exp(2*log(x)+x)^2-x), x)

(1)
2 log(x) + x +-+
3 %e + \|3
(- 2 log(x) - x)log(-----------------------)
+-+
\|3
+
2 log(x) + x +-+
- 3 %e + \|3
(- 2 log(x) - x)log(-------------------------)
+-+
\|3
+
2 log(x) + x +-+ 2 log(x) + x +-+
3 %e + \|3 - 3 %e + \|3
- dilog(-----------------------) - dilog(-------------------------)
+-+ +-+
\|3 \|3
+
2 2
4 log(x) + 4 x log(x) + x

Thus, we have a clear case of FOSS amateurs beating the pants off a
multi-million-dollar commercial enterprise.

Le 27-01-2024, Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Then that guy, Carpentier, objects my suspicions for stuff others have
> put together.

No, I don't reject someone's suspicions. It's a good thing to be
suspicious. It's the basic of science. But, you said you can't trust
anything others did and so you reject everything others did without
trying to know if it could be trustworthy or not. And that is plain
wrong because it left you with nothing because everything in modern life
is done by others. So, there are thing you can rely on people you can
trust, other things you can check by yourself and other thing you have
to chose.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:22:28 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>> <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=integrate+%28%28%28-4*x-8%29*log%28x%29%2B%28-2*x%5E2-4*x%29%29%2F%283*x*exp%282*log%28x%29%2Bx%29%5E2-x%29%2C+x%29>
>
>
> I can do that with hand in just 5 minutes. Well, with the Schaum's math
> handbook by my side :)
>

Unfortunately, with the development of the Risch algorithm and computer
algebra software, a lot of the standard tables of integrals (upon which
the Schaum handbook is based) have been shown to be wrong.

Thus, handbooks are out and CAS is in.

On 1/27/2024 8:17 AM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 27-01-2024, Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> Then that guy, Carpentier, objects my suspicions for stuff others have
>> put together.
>
> No, I don't reject someone's suspicions. It's a good thing to be
> suspicious. It's the basic of science. But, you said you can't trust
> anything others did and so you reject everything others did without
> trying to know if it could be trustworthy or not. And that is plain
> wrong because it left you with nothing because everything in modern life
> is done by others. So, there are thing you can rely on people you can
> trust, other things you can check by yourself and other thing you have
> to chose.
>

What the fuck? Hehe :)

There's something wrong with your head if you're out of high school.
Speak to me when you are having a clear mind.

On 1/27/2024 8:32 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> Unfortunately, with the development of the Risch algorithm and computer
> algebra software, a lot of the standard tables of integrals (upon which
> the Schaum handbook is based) have been shown to be wrong.

Are you serious? Why am I reading weird things tonight... Hahhahahh :-)

Of course I haven't tested Schaums' every single indefinite integral to
see what it says is correct or not, but I don't remember seeing a
mistake there either. And that's the section of the handbook I almost
always used (like most other students) for years.

In many exams, we were allowed to have Schaums' handbook with us when
such calculations were required.

The problem I had with Schaums handbook was that a good percentage of
the antiderivatives that I consulted with Schaums were not provided in
its lists; so the lists weren't comprehensive enough.

Well, have they corrected those tables in Schaums handbook since
software for doing it has developed? If not, why not?

On 1/27/2024 4:22 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:36:16 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>>
>> Wait a sec. Can Fricas express the math output using nothing but ascii?
>> If so, can one have a standalone Fricas app?
>>
>> If so, then it would have immensely fruitful use in usenet math and
>> physics communication!
>>
>
> Yes, it can. So too can Maxima. It's called "pretty printing."
>
> But regarding Usenet communication, the Unicode math symbols are
> allowed in messages and a quality Usenet client will have the
> necessary fonts to display them.
>
> ∫ sin(x^3) dx
>
> ∂f/∂x
>
> The only problem is that Unicode itself does not provide for
> typesetting (i.e. super- and subscripts, font sizing, etc.).
>

The main lacking feature is the inability to use more than one line to
express a single math formula, like a 5 by 5 matrix requires 5 lines to
be displayed.

But lower down at the link you gave I saw multiple lines being used to
express a single line of mathematical expression in ascii alone. That's
what usenet needs.

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 2:25:30 AM UTC-5, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> Are you serious? Why am I reading weird things tonight... Hahhahahh :-)
>

I may have overstated. Using CAS, some errors were found in some standard integral
tables. How many? I don't know but the vast majority were likely correct.

>
> Well, have they corrected those tables in Schaums handbook since
> software for doing it has developed? If not, why not?
>

I have no idea.

It's always recommended to double check all answers whether CAS or tables were
used.

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 2:32:21 AM UTC-5, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> But lower down at the link you gave I saw multiple lines being used to
> express a single line of mathematical expression in ascii alone. That's
> what usenet needs.
>

That's called ascii pretty printing. AFAIK, there is not a lot of software that
can do this. On the Internet, the trend is very much to use LaTex or MathJax.

But check out SymPy:

https://docs.sympy.org/dev/tutorials/intro-tutorial/printing.html

Unfortunately this is Python and I HATE Python.

There seems also to be Emacs:

https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/calc/Normal-Language-Modes.html

Emacs can do anything (thanks Dr. Stallman) but, unfortunately, I have
little experience in using Emacs.

However, I seriously doubt that most Usenel posters would be interested
in ascii pretty printing.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 06:08:33 -0800 (PST), Lord Master wrote:

> Emacs can do anything (thanks Dr. Stallman) but, unfortunately, I have
> little experience in using Emacs.

You're just upset because it always whipped your ass playing go. Like
Stallman emacs is extremely bloated but thinks very well of itself as it
lisps around.

On 1/31/2024 9:08 AM, Larry Pietraskiewicz wrote:

> I HATE Python.

Why?

It's the heart and soul of your Gentoo crapbox, and it saves you immense
amounts of time.

Bow down to Guido van Rossum.

On 2024-01-31 10:55 a.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 06:08:33 -0800 (PST), Lord Master wrote:
>
>> Emacs can do anything (thanks Dr. Stallman) but, unfortunately, I have
>> little experience in using Emacs.
>
> You're just upset because it always whipped your ass playing go. Like
> Stallman emacs is extremely bloated but thinks very well of itself as it
> lisps around.

ROFL!

--
RabidPedagog
Catholic paleoconservative
Linux Mint patron

On 1/31/2024 8:08 AM, Lord Master wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 2:32:21 AM UTC-5, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> But lower down at the link you gave I saw multiple lines being used to
>> express a single line of mathematical expression in ascii alone. That's
>> what usenet needs.
>>
>
> That's called ascii pretty printing. AFAIK, there is not a lot of software that
> can do this. On the Internet, the trend is very much to use LaTex or MathJax.
>
> But check out SymPy:
>
> https://docs.sympy.org/dev/tutorials/intro-tutorial/printing.html
>
> Unfortunately this is Python and I HATE Python.
>
> There seems also to be Emacs:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/calc/Normal-Language-Modes.html
>
> Emacs can do anything (thanks Dr. Stallman) but, unfortunately, I have
> little experience in using Emacs.
>
> However, I seriously doubt that most Usenel posters would be interested
> in ascii pretty printing.
>

It would work for occasional need to express a mathematical formula.
This audience doesn't at this point need that of course (they're too
much into Biden and Tampons). But in sci.physics, and here for
occasional little programming challenges you, or I, may post, it can
come handy. Even with fixed length fonts the formulas you have posted
get to some degree messed up. So something a bit better is needed.

Last year (or was it two years back?) I came up with a way of doing it
using a certain configuration of Thunderbird and the use of online (or
command line on PC) Diagon facility at:

https://arthursonzogni.com/Diagon

Using one of its tools called "Mathematical expression" and looking at
the Examples it has provided so one would know how to create the formula
in one line, then choosing the Style of ascii, then copying the output
on the right hand side, which uses multiple lines to nicely depict the
formulas, and paste that in the usenet message under such configuration
of Thunderbird for sender as well as the reader of the message.

I'll try one formula here, but by all probability you would see it
distorted if you're not reading it with Thunderbird under that certain
configuration:

1
.- 3
| 2 n
-' x . dx = --
0 3

Which shows a definite integral and its antiderivative using nothing but
ascii. More examples:

Square root:

_____________
/ _____
/ / x
/ 1 + / 1 + -
\/ \/ 2

Subscripts:

S = u + u + ... + u
n 1 2 n

etc.

One can download the Diagon C source and install it on the computer and
do the same thing without going online (using command line) to get the
output.

Also, a linux binary of the program is available to download which I
suppose remove the requirement of compiling the C codes.

On 1/31/2024 7:39 AM, Lord Master wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 2:25:30 AM UTC-5, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> Are you serious? Why am I reading weird things tonight... Hahhahahh :-)
>>
>
> I may have overstated. Using CAS, some errors were found in some standard integral
> tables. How many? I don't know but the vast majority were likely correct.
>
>>
>> Well, have they corrected those tables in Schaums handbook since
>> software for doing it has developed? If not, why not?
>>
>
> I have no idea.
>
> It's always recommended to double check all answers whether CAS or tables were
> used.
>

Wow, you're an early riser.

I think if they haven't bothered to correct them, the reason could be
that probably in applied science these days it's even faster to deal
with the integral itself directly, and not bother with its
antiderivative, if one is to get a pure number result. Computers have
affected everything.

On 2024-01-31, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 06:08:33 -0800 (PST), Lord Master wrote:
>
>> Emacs can do anything (thanks Dr. Stallman) but, unfortunately, I have
>> little experience in using Emacs.
>
> You're just upset because it always whipped your ass playing go. Like
> Stallman emacs is extremely bloated but thinks very well of itself as it
> lisps around.

I use Emacs for one thing, to run Fountain-Mode and know just enough to do
that. But I've looked at what else it can do and it's a whole world of its
own. I don't know if I would call it "bloated," I think I would be more
tempted to call it the Swiss Army Knife of "editors" since, apparently, it
can do so many things with "modes." I normally like simple, one job,
applications but Emacs does do Fountain-Mode well.

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 05:32:47 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I use Emacs for one thing, to run Fountain-Mode and know just enough to
> do that. But I've looked at what else it can do and it's a whole world
> of its own. I don't know if I would call it "bloated," I think I would
> be more tempted to call it the Swiss Army Knife of "editors" since,
> apparently, it can do so many things with "modes." I normally like
> simple, one job, applications but Emacs does do Fountain-Mode well.

I haven't used it in years but it could play go. Honest. Tell your
fortune, and do other stuff over and above editing. Back where HDDs were
tiny (comparatively speaking) iirc emacs was about 23 MB and vim was 2.

The last time I did anything it did have a GUI that made using it a little
easier. Prior to that it had three key combinations that made vim's
cryptic commands look simple.

You're right about the Swiss Army Knife. I have one that I found alongside
the road. It's someplace in the miscellaneous junk drawer because it does
many things not very well although the toothpick is usable.