It would be good if
limit(1/x, x = 0)
and
limit(tan(x), x = pi/2)
showed undefined as the answer, rather than infinity.
Sage simplifies
sinh(arcsinh(x))
to x and cannot do so for
arcsinh(sinh(x))
Sage can't simplify cosh(x) - (e^x + e^(-x))/2 to 0.
It is counterintuitive for mathematician users to understand log(x) as ln(x), rather than the common log of x.
Let us take as a comparison the results for some sample limits.
Sage shows for limit(sin(1/x), x=0) an indefinite (but bounded) result.
For limit(1/sin(1/x), x=0) we get indeed und.
For the given limit computation of $1/x$ for $x\to 0$ we may compare:
sage: limit(1/x, x=0)
Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, dir=None) # default value for dir
Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, dir='+')
+Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, dir='-')
-Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, dir='-', algorithm='maxima')
-Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, dir='+', algorithm='maxima')
+Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, algorithm='maxima')
Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, algorithm='fricas')
und
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, dir='+', algorithm='fricas')
+Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, dir='-', algorithm='fricas')
-Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, algorithm='sympy')
+Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, dir='+', algorithm='sympy')
+Infinity
sage: limit(1/x, x=0, dir='-', algorithm='sympy')
-Infinity
The differences are minimal, but they are there. First of all, fricas delivers (through sage) the wanted value und.
Then sage delivers three "differently printed" results, Infinity, +Infinity, and -Infinity for the direction respectively None (default), from the right (positive side), and from the left (negative side). For a closer look, let us compare:
sage: L = limit(1/x, x=0)
sage: L1 = limit(1/x, x=0, dir='+')
sage: L2 = limit(1/x, x=0, dir='-')
sage: bool(L == L1)
False
sage: bool(L == L2)
False
sage: bool(L1 == L2)
False
sage: sign(L1)
1
sage: sign(L2)
-1
sage: sign(L)
sgn(Infinity)
sage: L == Infinity
Infinity == +Infinity
sage: bool(L == Infinity)
False
unsigned_infinity
sage: L == unsigned_infinity
Infinity == Infinity
sage: bool(L == unsigned_infinity)
True
sage: L.is_positive()
False
sage: L.is_positive_infinity()
False
sage: L.is_infinity()
True
sage: L1.is_positive()
True
sage: L1.is_positive_infinity()
True
sage: L1.is_infinity()
True
sage: L2.is_negative()
True
sage: L2.is_negative_infinity()
True
So we have three different "limits", L, L1, and L2.
For the second limit we have a similar situation:
sage: limit(tan(x), x = pi/2)
Infinity
sage: limit(tan(x), x = pi/2, dir='-')
+Infinity
sage: limit(tan(x), x = pi/2, dir='+')
-Infinity
For the simplification, we have for instance:
sage: arcsinh(sinh(0))
0
sage: arcsinh(sinh(2*pi*i))
0
So there is some reason for keeping things as they are. (One may assume $x$ to be real, and then the story begins, somebody has to implement this simplification.)
For the final simplification we maybe also need an implementer.
Asked: 2022-05-25 00:28:04 +0200
Seen: 469 times
Last updated: May 26 '22
Copyright Sage, 2010. Some rights reserved under creative commons license. Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.
Regarding your last point, my impression has been that the meaning of "log" changes depending on the person's level of experience. Math faculty tend to think of "log" as the natural log, and math undergraduates tend to think of "log" as being the base 10 logarithm. There is a transition in the middle, probably different for different people.
Also, regarding the
logfunction, the "general mathematician" may / would expect an implementation for $$ log_b x\ . $$ Sage implements the above expression aslog(x, b), andbis here an optional argument. If given, it is taken. Else it defaults in sage to $e$. In school, there was of course an other convention, $\ln$ was already explicitly $log_e$. And $log$ without and lower index decoration was $log_{10}$. But here, we have some double face of the log-notation, too. After passing some level of mathematical usage, notations are chosen to give a best fit for a purpose. And in my whole university courses there was never the case i was needing the expression $log_{10}x$. I was always using $log_e x$. In papers, $log$ is $\ln$. Note also:The logarithm arise in elementary (high-school) analysis as $\log{x}=\displaystyle{\int_1^x \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t}}$. This (mathematically) "natural" definition gives the natural (a. k. a. "Neperian") logarithm.
The one-time predominance of the "decimal" logarithm in engineering textbooks came from the (then very important) practical convenience of taking decimal logarithm : one needed only ONE table giving the$\log_{10}{x}$ for $x\in]1\ 10[$, which was completed using the $\log_{10}$ of the magnitude (which is an integer).
The introduction of computers (and hand-held calculators) has deprived this historical convenience of any practical relevance ; $\log_{10}$ is now an historical engineering fetish, as much as men's neckties and ladies' garter belts are fashion's fetishes...