> I'm not suggesting it is a gold standard, but given the results agreed > reasonably closely with Sage, and were computed to arbitrary precision, then > I had a reasonable degree of confidence in believing the "failure" was not > really a failure at all. >
Thank you for your very clear explanation! Erik -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
