On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 15:13 -0700, William Stein wrote:
> On 10/14/07, Jonathan Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure right now, but I'm thinking about it.
>
> OK, your new code on x86_64 gets essentially every single
> number_of_partitions(n) wrong for 242 <= n <= 2833, and
> seems right for everything else.
>
I think that the fix (for x86_64) should be to add the following code
around line 462, right at the beginning of the function
compute_current_precision().
// n = the number for which we are computing p(n)
// N = the number of terms that have been computed so far
// if N is 0, then we can't use the above formula (because we would be
// dividing by 0).
if(N == 0) return compute_initial_precision(n) + extra;
It is actually odd that I am getting the correct answer on my (x86_32)
laptop.
This might also affect powerpc, but should only matter for small input.
For large input, disabling long doubles might help, but I'm not sure.
(The previous version of this code used long doubles as well, but the
original version did not.)
Also, for small input this algorithm might not be the best option (and
my code certainly is not optimized for small input), so it might
actually be better to use Pari if the sage --> pari --> sage conversion
is fast enough.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
