Mathematica 7 is now available - comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

Today, Wolfram Research announced Mathematica 7, a major release that accelerates the drive to integrate and automate functionality as core Mathematica capabilities, adding image processing, parallel high-performance computing (HPC), new on-demand curated data, and other recently developed computational innovations--in total over 500 new functions and 12 application areas. Image processing is one key integrated addition. Industrial-strength, high-performance functions for image composition, transformation, enhancement, and segmentation combine with the existing Mathematica infrastructure of high-level language, automated interface construction, interactive notebook documents, and computational power to create a uniquely versatile image processing solution. Built-in parallel computing is another key new area of integration in Mathematica 7 (and a first across technical computing). For the first time, every copy of Mathematica comes standard with the technology to parallelize computations over multiple cores or over networks of Mathematica deployed across a grid. Every copy of Mathematica 7 comes with four computation processes included. More processes as well as network capabilities can be added easily. Computable data sources, introduced in Mathematica 6, are unique and popular innovations because of the ease with which data can be utilized in Mathematica. Mathematica 7 builds on this with major additions including the complete human genome, as well as weather, astronomical, GIS, and geodesy data. Example uses include finding, analyzing, and visualizing gene sequences--making use of Mathematica's powerful string capabilities (including new string alignment functionality), pattern matching, and statistics. Similarly, both real-time and historical weather data from 16,000 weather stations is included in Mathematica 7, giving everyone from climatologists to economists curated information to use in their analyses or applications. Other areas of innovation in Mathematica 7 include: * Charting and information visualization * Vector field visualization * Comprehensive spline support, including NURBS * Industrial-strength Boolean computation * Statistical model analysis * Integrated geodesy and GIS data * Many symbolic computation breakthroughs, including discrete calculus, sequence recognition, and transcendental roots To learn more about the enhancements available in Mathematica 7 and to see the full list of new features, visit: http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/newin7 NOTE: Mathematica users with Premier Service will receive an email in the next few days with instructions on how to download their free upgrades.

Hello, I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other messages) are still present in 7.0: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_frm/thread/265f5619682b67e/0188372330785945 I'd also be curious about the performance (especially memory use) of the graphics system. In version 6, ListDensityPlot could use up an enormous amount of memory when high order interpolation was turned on (much much more memory than the size of the final graphic that was generated). Finally I'd like to say that, though this might seem like a very minor point compared to the other new features, I appreciate the addition of line cap and join controls very much (CapForm, JoinForm). Those very sorely missed in v6!

Mathematica 7.0: The first results are 8 for the Union and also 8 for the Tally. With the different number, neither are 2 and 4 isomorphic nor are 4 and 2 isomorphic. Szabolcs wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other > messages) are still present in 7.0: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_frm/thread/265f5619682b67e/0188372330785945 > > I'd also be curious about the performance (especially memory use) of > the graphics system. In version 6, ListDensityPlot could use up an > enormous amount of memory when high order interpolation was turned on > (much much more memory than the size of the final graphic that was > generated). > > > Finally I'd like to say that, though this might seem like a very minor > point compared to the other new features, I appreciate the addition of > line cap and join controls very much (CapForm, JoinForm). Those very > sorely missed in v6! > -- Murray Eisenberg murray@math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305

That PARTICULAR failure of Tally, at least, seems to be gone in version 7. No promises in general, mind you. Bobby On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:55:39 -0600, Szabolcs <szhorvat@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other > messages) are still present in 7.0: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_frm/thread/265f5619682b67e/0188372330785945 > > I'd also be curious about the performance (especially memory use) of > the graphics system. In version 6, ListDensityPlot could use up an > enormous amount of memory when high order interpolation was turned on > (much much more memory than the size of the final graphic that was > generated). > > > Finally I'd like to say that, though this might seem like a very minor > point compared to the other new features, I appreciate the addition of > line cap and join controls very much (CapForm, JoinForm). Those very > sorely missed in v6! > -- DrMajorBob@longhorns.com

The Tally[] problem is solved. This I checked with a prerelease version of Mathematica 7 I got at this year's Mathematica users conference. Michael Szabolcs schrieb: > Hello, > > I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other > messages) are still present in 7.0: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_frm/thread/265f5619682b67e/0188372330785945 > > I'd also be curious about the performance (especially memory use) of > the graphics system. In version 6, ListDensityPlot could use up an > enormous amount of memory when high order interpolation was turned on > (much much more memory than the size of the final graphic that was > generated). > > > Finally I'd like to say that, though this might seem like a very minor > point compared to the other new features, I appreciate the addition of > line cap and join controls very much (CapForm, JoinForm). Those very > sorely missed in v6! >

Szabolcs wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other > messages) are still present in 7.0: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_frm/thread/265f5619682b67e/0188372330785945 I'd like to know if the ability to set a RevolutionAxis (which was present in the old SurfaceOfRevolution, and is sorely missing in RevolutionPlot3D) has been added to RevolutionPlot3D. -- Helen Read University of Vermont

On Nov 21, 11:34 am, Helen Read <r...@math.uvm.edu> wrote: > Szabolcs wrote: > > Hello, > > > I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other > > messages) are still present in 7.0: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_... > > I'd like to know if the ability to set a RevolutionAxis (which was > present in the old SurfaceOfRevolution, and is sorely missing in > RevolutionPlot3D) has been added to RevolutionPlot3D. > Hello Helen, RevolutionPlot3D does have a RevolutionAxis option in Mathematica 6.0.3. Does it differ in any way from the RevolutionAxis option of SurfaceOfRevolution? Try this: RevolutionPlot3D[Cos[x], {x, 0, Pi}, RevolutionAxis -> {1, 1, 0}]

On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:34 AM, Helen Read wrote: > Szabolcs wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other >> messages) are still present in 7.0: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_frm/thread/265f5619682b67e/0188372330785945 > > I'd like to know if the ability to set a RevolutionAxis (which was > present in the old SurfaceOfRevolution, and is sorely missing in > RevolutionPlot3D) has been added to RevolutionPlot3D. Yes. http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/RevolutionAxis.html Brett

Yes, there is a new RevolutionAxis option in Version 7. David Park djmpark@comcast.net http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark From: Helen Read [mailto:read@math.uvm.edu] I'd like to know if the ability to set a RevolutionAxis (which was present in the old SurfaceOfRevolution, and is sorely missing in RevolutionPlot3D) has been added to RevolutionPlot3D. -- Helen Read University of Vermont

Hello, Can someone explain why Mathematica is going directly to version 7.0? Version 6.0 was a big improvement, but it was not very polished. I have some problems using it. Specially the documentation System and some Java issues. I am wondering if with this new version, we will have another big improvement, but we will remain having to cope with the same kind of problems. On Nov 21, 8:32 am, Michael Weyrauch <michael.weyra...@gmx.de> wrote: > The Tally[] problem is solved. This I checked with a prerelease version > of Mathematica 7 I got at this year's Mathematica users conference. > > Michael > > Szabolcs schrieb: > > > Hello, > > > I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other > > messages) are still present in 7.0: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_... > > > I'd also be curious about the performance (especially memory use) of > > the graphics system. In version 6, ListDensityPlot could use up an > > enormous amount of memory when high order interpolation was turned on > > (much much more memory than the size of the final graphic that was > > generated). > > > Finally I'd like to say that, though this might seem like a very minor > > point compared to the other new features, I appreciate the addition of > > line cap and join controls very much (CapForm, JoinForm). Those very > > sorely missed in v6!

On Nov 21, 11:32 am, Michael Weyrauch <michael.weyra...@gmx.de> wrote: > The Tally[] problem is solved. This I checked with a prerelease version > of Mathematica 7 I got at this year's Mathematica users conference. > What about the other bug (the eigenvalue problem), linked from the same thread I mentioned? I copied the (wrong) results from Mathematica 6 here: In[1]:= mat = {{-6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, -6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {-Sqrt[3], 0, -4, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, -Sqrt[3], 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -4/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 7/3, 0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0}, {Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, 0}, {0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0}, {0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, -14/3, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -2, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, -7/3, 0, 0, 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), Sqrt[10/3]}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, -16/3, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -8/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 1/2, 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16)}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[10/3], 0, 0, 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16), 7/2}}; In[2]:= mat === Conjugate@Transpose[mat] Out[2]= True (mat is Hermitian so we expect real eigenvalues.) In[3]:= N@Eigenvalues[mat] Out[3]= {-9.41358 + 0.88758 I, -9.41358 - 0.88758 I, -7.37965 + 2.32729 I, -7.37965 - 2.32729 I, -4.46655 + 2.59738 I, -4.46655 - 2.59738 I, 4.36971, 3.21081, -2.32456 + 2.10914 I, -2.32456 - 2.10914 I, 2.04366+ 0.552265 I, 2.04366- 0.552265 I, -0.249588 + 1.29034 I, -0.249588 - 1.29034 I} In[4]:= Eigenvalues[N[mat]] Out[4]= {-9.09122, -7.41855, -7.41855, -7.2915, 4.33734, -4., -4., \ 3.2915, -3.24612, -2.38787, -2.38787, 1.80642, 1.80642, 9.21707*10^-16}

Mathematica 7.0 (Windows 32 bit). For your mat: N@Eigenvalues[mat] // InputForm {-9.091215416949623, -7.4185507188738455, -7.4185507188738455, -7.291502622129181, 4.337337307188519, -4., -4., 3.2915026221291814, -3.2461218902388955, -2.387873132949261, -2.387873132949261, 1.8064238518231066, 1.8064238518231066, 0.} Szabolcs wrote: > On Nov 21, 11:32 am, Michael Weyrauch <michael.weyra...@gmx.de> wrote: >> The Tally[] problem is solved. This I checked with a prerelease version >> of Mathematica 7 I got at this year's Mathematica users conference. >> > > What about the other bug (the eigenvalue problem), linked from the > same thread I mentioned? > > I copied the (wrong) results from Mathematica 6 here: > > > In[1]:= mat = {{-6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 0}, {0, -6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 0}, {-Sqrt[3], 0, -4, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), > 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, -Sqrt[3], > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -4/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, 0, > Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 7/3, > 0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0}, {Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, 0}, {0, > Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, > 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0}, {0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, -14/3, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, > 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -2, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, > 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, > 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, -7/3, 0, 0, > 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), Sqrt[10/3]}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, -16/3, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, > 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -8/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0}, {0, > 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), > 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 1/2, > 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16)}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > Sqrt[10/3], 0, 0, 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16), 7/2}}; > > In[2]:= mat === Conjugate@Transpose[mat] > Out[2]= True > > (mat is Hermitian so we expect real eigenvalues.) > > In[3]:= N@Eigenvalues[mat] > > Out[3]= {-9.41358 + 0.88758 I, -9.41358 - 0.88758 I, -7.37965 + > 2.32729 I, -7.37965 - 2.32729 I, -4.46655 + 2.59738 I, -4.46655 - > 2.59738 I, 4.36971, 3.21081, -2.32456 + 2.10914 I, -2.32456 - > 2.10914 I, 2.04366+ 0.552265 I, > 2.04366- 0.552265 I, -0.249588 + 1.29034 I, -0.249588 - 1.29034 I} > > In[4]:= Eigenvalues[N[mat]] > > Out[4]= {-9.09122, -7.41855, -7.41855, -7.2915, 4.33734, -4., -4., \ > 3.2915, -3.24612, -2.38787, -2.38787, 1.80642, 1.80642, > 9.21707*10^-16} > -- Murray Eisenberg murray@math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305

It seems that the sizes of the resulting .PDFs are more reasonable now, but there are still problems with strange artifacts appearing. If the exported graphic is to look more like it does on screen, the "use bitmap representation" helps the look immensely, but it obviously leads to more jaggies, and leads to much larger file sizes. > I hope the problem where Exporting or Save As... for a Plot3D to pdf > format (Windows platform) resulted in HUGE file sizes has been > addressed in 7. > > --JD > >

Yes, that bug is gone too. (For that example.) mat = {{-6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, -6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {-Sqrt[3], 0, -4, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, -Sqrt[3], 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -4/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 7/3, 0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0}, {Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, 0}, {0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0}, {0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, -14/3, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -2, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, -7/3, 0, 0, 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), Sqrt[10/3]}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, -16/3, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -8/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 1/2, 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16)}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[10/3], 0, 0, 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16), 7/2}}; mat === Conjugate@Transpose[mat] True nEigen = N@Eigenvalues[mat] {-9.09122, -7.41855, -7.41855, -7.2915, 4.33734, -4., -4., 3.2915, \ -3.24612, -2.38787, -2.38787, 1.80642, 1.80642, 0.} eigenN = Eigenvalues[N[mat]] {-9.09122, -7.41855, -7.41855, -7.2915, 4.33734, -4., -4., 3.2915, \ -3.24612, -2.38787, -2.38787, 1.80642, 1.80642, -9.93145*10^-16} nEigen - eigenN // Chop {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0} Bobby On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:14:36 -0600, Szabolcs <szhorvat@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 21, 11:32 am, Michael Weyrauch <michael.weyra...@gmx.de> wrote: >> The Tally[] problem is solved. This I checked with a prerelease version >> of Mathematica 7 I got at this year's Mathematica users conference. >> > > What about the other bug (the eigenvalue problem), linked from the > same thread I mentioned? > > I copied the (wrong) results from Mathematica 6 here: > > > In[1]:= mat = {{-6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 0}, {0, -6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 0}, {-Sqrt[3], 0, -4, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), > 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, -Sqrt[3], > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -4/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, 0, > Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 7/3, > 0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0}, {Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, 0}, {0, > Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, > 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0}, {0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, -14/3, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, > 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -2, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, > 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, > 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, -7/3, 0, 0, > 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), Sqrt[10/3]}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, -16/3, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, > 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -8/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0}, {0, > 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), > 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 1/2, > 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16)}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > Sqrt[10/3], 0, 0, 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16), 7/2}}; > > In[2]:= mat === Conjugate@Transpose[mat] > Out[2]= True > > (mat is Hermitian so we expect real eigenvalues.) > > In[3]:= N@Eigenvalues[mat] > > Out[3]= {-9.41358 + 0.88758 I, -9.41358 - 0.88758 I, -7.37965 + > 2.32729 I, -7.37965 - 2.32729 I, -4.46655 + 2.59738 I, -4.46655 - > 2.59738 I, 4.36971, 3.21081, -2.32456 + 2.10914 I, -2.32456 - > 2.10914 I, 2.04366+ 0.552265 I, > 2.04366- 0.552265 I, -0.249588 + 1.29034 I, -0.249588 - 1.29034 I} > > In[4]:= Eigenvalues[N[mat]] > > Out[4]= {-9.09122, -7.41855, -7.41855, -7.2915, 4.33734, -4., -4., \ > 3.2915, -3.24612, -2.38787, -2.38787, 1.80642, 1.80642, > 9.21707*10^-16} > -- DrMajorBob@longhorns.com

Szabolcs wrote: > On Nov 21, 11:34 am, Helen Read <r...@math.uvm.edu> wrote: >> Szabolcs wrote: >>> Hello, >>> I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other >>> messages) are still present in 7.0: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_... >> I'd like to know if the ability to set a RevolutionAxis (which was >> present in the old SurfaceOfRevolution, and is sorely missing in >> RevolutionPlot3D) has been added to RevolutionPlot3D. >> > > Hello Helen, > > RevolutionPlot3D does have a RevolutionAxis option in Mathematica > 6.0.3. Does it differ in any way from the RevolutionAxis option of > SurfaceOfRevolution? > > Try this: > > RevolutionPlot3D[Cos[x], {x, 0, Pi}, RevolutionAxis -> {1, 1, 0}] Wow, they sure snuck it in. It was missing prior to 6.0.3, and it's nowhere to be found in the Documentation for 6.0.3. -- Helen Read University of Vermont

Brett Champion wrote: > On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:34 AM, Helen Read wrote: > >> I'd like to know if the ability to set a RevolutionAxis (which was >> present in the old SurfaceOfRevolution, and is sorely missing in >> RevolutionPlot3D) has been added to RevolutionPlot3D. > > Yes. > > http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/RevolutionAxis.html Nice. This will make my students happy. Now they won't have to stand on their heads and interchange x and y and set ViewVertical->{-1,0,0} to revolve around the x-axis. -- Helen Read University of Vermont

"Szabolcs" <szhorvat@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gg8pih$k4r$1@smc.vnet.net... > On Nov 21, 11:32 am, Michael Weyrauch <michael.weyra...@gmx.de> wrote: >> The Tally[] problem is solved. This I checked with a prerelease version >> of Mathematica 7 I got at this year's Mathematica users conference. >> > > What about the other bug (the eigenvalue problem), linked from the > same thread I mentioned? > > I copied the (wrong) results from Mathematica 6 here: > > > In[1]:= mat = {{-6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 0}, {0, -6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 0}, {-Sqrt[3], 0, -4, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), > 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, -Sqrt[3], > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -4/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, 0, > Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 7/3, > 0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0}, {Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, 0}, {0, > Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, > 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0}, {0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, -14/3, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, > 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + Sqrt[3]/4), > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -2, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, > 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, > 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, -7/3, 0, 0, > 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), Sqrt[10/3]}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, -16/3, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, > 0, 0, 2 Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0, > 2 (-1/(4 Sqrt[3]) + (3 Sqrt[3])/4), -8/3, -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 0}, {0, > 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 (1/(3 Sqrt[2]) + (2 Sqrt[2])/3), > 2 Sqrt[2/3], -(2 Sqrt[2])/3, 1/2, > 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16)}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > Sqrt[10/3], 0, 0, 2 (-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16), 7/2}}; > > In[2]:= mat === Conjugate@Transpose[mat] > Out[2]= True > > (mat is Hermitian so we expect real eigenvalues.) > > In[3]:= N@Eigenvalues[mat] > > Out[3]= {-9.41358 + 0.88758 I, -9.41358 - 0.88758 I, -7.37965 + > 2.32729 I, -7.37965 - 2.32729 I, -4.46655 + 2.59738 I, -4.46655 - > 2.59738 I, 4.36971, 3.21081, -2.32456 + 2.10914 I, -2.32456 - > 2.10914 I, 2.04366+ 0.552265 I, > 2.04366- 0.552265 I, -0.249588 + 1.29034 I, -0.249588 - 1.29034 I} > > In[4]:= Eigenvalues[N[mat]] > > Out[4]= {-9.09122, -7.41855, -7.41855, -7.2915, 4.33734, -4., -4., \ > 3.2915, -3.24612, -2.38787, -2.38787, 1.80642, 1.80642, > 9.21707*10^-16} > It seems to be fixed in M7: In[36]:= $Version Out[36]= 7.0 for Microsoft Windows (32-bit) (November 10, 2008) In[32]:= mat = {{-6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, -6, 0, -Sqrt[3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {-Sqrt[3], 0, -4, 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + (3*Sqrt[3])/ 4), 2*Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, -Sqrt[3], 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + (3*Sqrt[3])/ 4), -4/3, -(2*Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 2*Sqrt[2/3], -(2*Sqrt[2])/3, 7/3, 0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0}, {Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, 2*Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0, 0}, {0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 0, 0, -4, 0, 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, 0, 2*Sqrt[2/3], 0, 0}, {0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + Sqrt[3]/4), 0, -14/3, 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + (3*Sqrt[3])/4), 2*Sqrt[2/3], (2*Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + Sqrt[3]/4), 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + (3*Sqrt[3])/ 4), -2, -(2*Sqrt[2])/3, 0, (2*Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[3], 0, 0, 2*Sqrt[2/3], -(2*Sqrt[2])/3, -7/3, 0, 0, 2*(1/(3*Sqrt[2]) + (2*Sqrt[2])/3), Sqrt[10/3]}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2*Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2*Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 0, -16/3, 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + (3*Sqrt[3])/4), 2*Sqrt[2/3], 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2*Sqrt[2/3], 0, (2*Sqrt[2])/3, 0, 2*(-(4*Sqrt[3])^(-1) + (3*Sqrt[3])/ 4), -8/3, -(2*Sqrt[2])/3, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2*(1/(3*Sqrt[2]) + (2*Sqrt[2])/3), 2*Sqrt[2/3], -(2*Sqrt[2])/3, 1/2, 2*(-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16)}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, Sqrt[10/3], 0, 0, 2*(-Sqrt[5/3]/16 - Sqrt[15]/16), 7/2}}; In[33]:= mat === Conjugate[Transpose[mat]] Out[33]= True In[34]:= N[Eigenvalues[mat]] Out[34]= {-9.091215416949623, -7.4185507188738455, -7.4185507188738455, -7.291502622129181, 4.337337307188519, -4., -4., 3.2915026221291814, -3.2461218902388955, -2.387873132949261, -2.387873132949261, 1.8064238518231066, 1.8064238518231066, 0.} In[35]:= Eigenvalues[N[mat]] Out[35]= {-9.091215416949622, -7.4185507188738455, -7.418550718873844, -7.291502622129181, 4.337337307188519, -4.000000000000002, -3.999999999999999, 3.2915026221291814, -3.246121890238896, -2.387873132949261, -2.3878731329492604, 1.8064238518231066, 1.8064238518231046, -2.8189256280805394*^-16} Nasser

But... $Version 6.0 for Microsoft Windows (32-bit) (May 21, 2008) Options[RevolutionPlot3D][[51]] RevolutionAxis -> {0, 0, 1} Helen Read wrote: > Szabolcs wrote: >> On Nov 21, 11:34 am, Helen Read <r...@math.uvm.edu> wrote: >>> Szabolcs wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> I would like to know if the two bugs mentioned here (and in other >>>> messages) are still present in 7.0: >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_... >>> I'd like to know if the ability to set a RevolutionAxis (which was >>> present in the old SurfaceOfRevolution, and is sorely missing in >>> RevolutionPlot3D) has been added to RevolutionPlot3D. >>> >> Hello Helen, >> >> RevolutionPlot3D does have a RevolutionAxis option in Mathematica >> 6.0.3. Does it differ in any way from the RevolutionAxis option of >> SurfaceOfRevolution? >> >> Try this: >> >> RevolutionPlot3D[Cos[x], {x, 0, Pi}, RevolutionAxis -> {1, 1, 0}] > > Wow, they sure snuck it in. It was missing prior to 6.0.3, and it's > nowhere to be found in the Documentation for 6.0.3. > > -- > Helen Read > University of Vermont > -- Murray Eisenberg murray@math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305