Opened 4 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

## #22850 new defect

# Change specific heaviside() interface to Maxima

Reported by: | rws | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|

Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-8.0 |

Component: | calculus | Keywords: | |

Cc: | Merged in: | ||

Authors: | Reviewers: | ||

Report Upstream: | Not yet reported upstream; Will do shortly. | Work issues: | |

Branch: | Commit: | ||

Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |

### Description

Sage interfaces its Heaviside function with a Maxima function named `hstep`

which seems to implement the same function. However, there is no documentation on it, and it is not supported in Runge-Kutta DE computations, nor in integration. This leads to mathematically wrong results when calling `desolve_rk4()`

and `integrate()`

with expressions containing `heaviside`

(but it's working with `unit_step`

).

The ticket should either replace `hstep`

with `unit_step`

in the Maxima interfaces, or remove it altogether with a warning. Alternatively, use `substitute_function`

in `desolve_rk4()`

and `integrate()`

. Additionally, the issue with `hstep`

should be reported upstream.

### Change History (8)

### comment:1 follow-up: ↓ 2 Changed 3 years ago by

### comment:2 in reply to: ↑ 1 ; follow-up: ↓ 3 Changed 3 years ago by

Replying to mforets:

i am curious about the 2nd alternative: remove it altogether with a warning. does it mean that we can write a custom integrate method that fixes integration etc and symbolics?

because if you compare with the similar problematic behaviour with the dirac delta:

sage: integrate(dirac_delta(x-1)*sin(x), x, 0, 2, algorithm='maxima') # ?? integrate(dirac_delta(x - 1)*sin(x), x, 0, 2) sage: integrate(dirac_delta(x-1)*sin(x), x, 0, 2, algorithm='sympy') # ok sin(1)then in this other case there is no other "dirac delta" that can be used as backup, in analogy to the unit step. hence in this case i have the impression that the 2nd alternative is the only choice, isn't it?

It would be if the result (the unevaluated integral) was mathematically wrong, but it's not, so it's not a bug.

### comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 3 years ago by

However, another alternative for the enhancement of `dirac_delta`

integration would then be to always call SymPy.

### comment:4 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 3 years ago by

However, another alternative for the enhancement of dirac_delta integration would then be to always call SymPy?.

is it possible to dispatch a particular integrator when the symbolic expression has the presence of a given function (such as dirac delta)? like a notion of "weak default"

### comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 3 years ago by

Replying to mforets:

is it possible to dispatch a particular integrator when the symbolic expression has the presence of a given function (such as dirac delta)? like a notion of "weak default"

Recognition works even in Python:

sage: (1 + sin(dirac_delta(x))).has(dirac_delta(SR.wild())) True

Changing the integrator would be done in `src/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py`

. Why not?

### comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by

ok, and this would require some decorator technology?

(just in case, in general i'm -1 to change the default integrator to other different than `maxima`

)

think that a similar trick could be applied to laplace with heaviside for instance

### comment:7 Changed 3 years ago by

I have no idea (I only fiddled once with changing the result after the integrators had a go). Please go ahead.

### comment:8 Changed 3 years ago by

we should also consider extending the available software interfaces to `desolvers.py`

. SymPy? has dsolve. Giac has `odesolve`

. one could be interested in choosing some of these, not only for this but for other examples.

for the integral customization, there is some initial effort in the `DefiniteIntegral`

class, at `/symbolic/integration/integral.py`

.

**Note:**See TracTickets for help on using tickets.

i am curious about the 2nd alternative: remove it altogether with a warning. does it mean that we can write a custom integrate method that fixes integration etc and symbolics?

because if you compare with the similar problematic behaviour with the dirac delta:

then in this other case there is no other "dirac delta" that can be used as backup, in analogy to the unit step. hence in this case i have the impression that the 2nd alternative is the only choice, isn't it?