clicliclic@freenet.de schrieb:   
   >   
   > I believe it has been mentioned on sci.math symbolic that the   
   > radicands of Timofeev's examples 5.85 (#421), 5.89 - 90 (#425 - #426),   
   > 5.98 - 99 (#434 - #435), and 5.109 (#446) are negative for all real x.   
   > Timofeev may have been unaware of this because considerable work is   
   > involved in plotting such integrands on paper with the help of a slide   
   > rule. If no indication can be found in his book that such radicands   
   > were introduced deliberately, I won't object if a consensus emerges to   
   > negate these six in the Timofeev testsuite (briefly noting the what   
   > and why in comments), but neither am I going to push the issue.   
   >   
      
   I am already beginning to have doubts, or to recall old doubts.   
      
   How can an obviously experienced applied mathematician consistently   
   write in 5.85:   
      
     - COS(x)^2 - 5*SIN(x)^2 = 4*COS(x)^2 - 5   
      
   or in 5.98 and 5.99:   
      
     4 - 5*SEC(x)^2 = - 1 - 5*TAN(x)^2   
      
   and not realize that these radicands are negative for all real x?   
      
   Martin.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)