## Where communities thrive

• Join over 1.5M+ people
• Join over 100K+ communities
• Free without limits
##### Activity
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan Thanks for the explanation.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich Btw, look how Rubi could solve an integral much better than Mathematica https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/175452/187
@AlbertRich And I have another question: The integral sign that you used for the icon, where did you get this. It's not LaTeX. It is more round and not as slender as the LaTeX version.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan In Mathematica I put a space on each of a Traditional Form integral sign. Made the font size huge. Copy and pasted it into Windows Paint program, cropped it to be the right proportions for an icon, and saved it as a jpg file.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan Just saw your Stack Exchange post. That's a good teaser for Rubi's new home! :smile:
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich Yep. I tried Rubi for fun and I must say, I was surprised that really could compute a much better antiderivative where you could simplify out all the complex parts.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan The test suite has 1000s more good examples, some even much more dramatic...
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
For even more fun, try integrating ArcTan[x]^2 / (x^2 + 2 x + 2) using Rubi and Mathematica.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
As you can see, I have taken the liberty to add another "dx" to the logo. The single integral sign was a bit lost. I have created a real vector graphics from this with Adobe Illustrator so that we can make further changes and we can export it in any resolution we want.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan Nice. I like it.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan I would like to change "An extensive set of symbolic integration rules" to "An extensive system of symbolic integration rules" to suggest that Rubi is not just an ad hoc collection of rules, but is based on an integrated system of rules able to integrate large, well-defined classes of expressions.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich Did it for you (I wasn't sure where exactly this phrase was used)
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan I was going to, but didn't know how. Did not see a pencil or Edit button...
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich It is in the settings of the organization here https://github.com/organizations/RuleBasedIntegration/settings/profile
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
Now I know.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich Hey Albert. The website should now be reachable under rulebasedintegration.org.
I figured that a 1-page layout might be too sparse. Therefore, I have made a menu-bar. The buttons for the package, rules, and (later) tests link currently directly to the repositories, because the repositories themselves have a large README that is instantly displayed.
But if you think we should make a small page for them on the website that explains some stuff and link from there to the repository, that would also work.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
You "Vision" page sounds at the moment a bit too personal for my taste. There is a lot of good information, but maybe we can pull your personal information (eg, what you worked on) to the "About" section and make statements like "I am convinced.." a bit more object ("We believe"?).
@AlbertRich In any case, in the website repo you find now the files index.md (the home site), vision.md, and about.md and if you have some time, you can edit them and add content.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich Ha, forget what I said about the Vision page. I just realised we already have this on the Wiki and there, you put a disclaimer "Comments by Albert...". I think this is perfect.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan Hi Patrick. Sorry I can't respond to this until tomorrow. Albert
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan I am relieved you are ok with the revised vision statement on Rubi's WIki that had already been edited to delete what I thought inappropriate for GitHub. However, if you feel additional changes need to be made, please let me know.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich I think it is fine that way. I started copying the Vision from your original site and made changes on the way, but then I though it is really for you to decide and I shouldn't simply edit your thoughts. That's why I brought it up. And then I remembered you had created a similar page for the Wiki.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan I just visited rulebasedintegration.org for the first time. Wow! It looks great.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan In _config.yml, I just changed the description to "An extensive system of symbolic integration rules". Ok?
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan I would like to encourage the development of definite integration rules in addition to indefinite integration rules. To that end, should we add two subsections under IntegrationRules named DefiniteIntegrationRules and IndefiniteIntegrationRules?
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich

@halirutan You wrote:

But if you think we should make a small page for them on the website that explains some stuff and link from there to the repository, that would also work.

Yes, as on Rubi's old website, clicking on the "Integration Rules" menu option should lead to another website page with the text at the beginning of the current README.md file and a menu-bar with the options: "Algebraic", "Exponential", "Log", "Trig", "Inverse Trig", "Hyperbolic", "Inverse Hyperbolic", "Special Functions", and "Miscellaneous".

Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan At the risk of asking for way too much :smile:, even better would be drop-down menus that appear when you hover over "Algebraic", "Exponential", etc that lead directly to the pdf files in the repository.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan I just heavily revised about.md.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich Nice!
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan

@halirutan At the risk of asking for way too much :smile:, even better would be drop-down menus that appear when you hover over "Algebraic", "Exponential", etc that lead directly to the pdf files in the repository.

Such nested drop-down-menus are realy old-school and not used anymore nowadays. But more importantly, all we do at the moment is a compromise between two things: (1) Having a clear design and all information in one place (that is used by almost all today's developers) and (2) simplicity so that you can easily grasp how to change and edit things without learning too much useless web-dev stuff. Such a nested drop-down is certainly possible, but it would mean that I have to re-create the web-site on each change. I would very much not go this way :)

Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan

The current menu is a bit of a hack and I'm using buttons that are originally not meant to be a menu, but it looked great when I tested it and therefore I used it. So for the website, I would like to keep this simple "one level" menu where each entry either leads directly to a repository or it has exactly one page behind it. Therefore, this

@halirutan I would like to encourage the development of definite integration rules in addition to indefinite integration rules. To that end, should we add two subsections under IntegrationRules named DefiniteIntegrationRules and IndefiniteIntegrationRules?

is absolutely fine when it stays on one page. I'm not sure I completely understood this though. The current state is that Rubi only has indefinite integration rules, right?

Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan Yes.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich What about the following: The Wiki is at the moment only duplicating most of the information that we can now present on the website. This is something I had not anticipated because my plan was to make a one-page website only. Therefore, I suggest:
1. We use the website to represent the current state of Rubi. We explain what it is and what repositories are available
2. On the Wiki, we can present and discuss future development (like the definite/indefinite rules information). There, you can feel free to add any content you think is important and we link from the website to the wiki.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan Yes, here I am suggesting changes to the RuleBasedIntegration organization, not to the website.
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
Basically, make IntegrationRules/DefiniteIntegrationRules an empty place-holder for now.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich OK, we keep that for later. I want this initial version of everything out :)
@AlbertRich Have you seen my comment about your Rubi challange in the private chat?
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan No, how do I check the "private chat"?
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@AlbertRich On the left, you see a "talk bubble". Press it and you should see an entry that says my name.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan

@AlbertRich In addition to the Mathematica package update, I added the following things to the web-page:

1. I created a "page" for the Mathematica Package which includes now all information about installation and usage and links to the correct places
2. I edited the "Home" page and included a plot that I believe fits into the overall style of the web-page.

The "Home" page needs a bit more content, but I would like to announce everything this week, as I'm on vacation a week later.

@AlbertRich How is your plan for this week? Do you think we can manage to make these final edits?
(We should not forget to edit the Competition page and make clear that for the competition, the old-style Rubi package should be use or at least, the statistics should be compared. I don't think I manage to debug the reason for the difference this week)
Albert D. Rich
@AlbertRich
@halirutan Hi Patrick. Your edits to the Home and Mathematica Package menu options on the GitHub website for Rubi look great.
I would not be to concerned about the Competition. I think there is already a clear winner who has no competition. I will revise the page to refer to version 4.15 of Rubi.
@halirutan However, I am greatly concerned about confusion that will arise as you modify the Rubi interface and I modify the Rubi engine. You have been assigning new version numbers for Rubi (4.16 and now 4.17) as the interface changes. I want to keep control of the Rubi engine version numbers continuing with my current numbering scheme. The current engine version number is 4.15.2 and I am working on 4.15.3.