Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-07-12 Thread Carl Witty
I realize this thread is 4 months old, but let me respond to this one technical question: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Simon King wrote: > Hi! > > On Mar 4, 8:24 am, Robert Bradshaw > wrote: >> I believe there is also some randomized testing that is done in the >> category code that takes ran

[sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread rjf
On Mar 4, 4:01 am, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote: . > BTW, playing around I found this bug in Mathematica, by picking some extreme > cases. > > In[3]:= Sin[2^900.23] > > Out[3]= 0.938865 // This agrees with Sage. > > In[4]:= Sin[2^5000.0] > > Out[4]= 0. > It seems that for any sufficient

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Andrzej Giniewicz
about test suites - random or not so maybe slightly offtopic but didn't wanted to open new topic for something so close - I just wonder, had anyone tested Sage against http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru/ exact solution database? It's basic database of exact solutions for integrals, ODEs and much more - but I

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Jason Grout wrote: On 03/04/2010 04:07 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Anyway, it seems my view is a minority one here. I don't think that's necessarily the case (I agree with you that randomized testing is a good thing). However, I also agree

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Dr. David Kirkby
Jason Grout wrote: On 03/04/2010 04:07 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Anyway, it seems my view is a minority one here. I don't think that's necessarily the case (I agree with you that randomized testing is a good thing). However, I also agree with others that writing doctests is more importa

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Ralf Hemmecke
If this is a call for a vote ;-), let me tell that I completely agree with the point of view that in an ideal world, tests should be written *before* the code and by a *different* person (extreme/peer programming). In an ideal world test would be extracted from theorems of theoretical papers. A

[sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Jason Grout
On 03/04/2010 04:07 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Anyway, it seems my view is a minority one here. I don't think that's necessarily the case (I agree with you that randomized testing is a good thing). However, I also agree with others that writing doctests is more important for those that fe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Robert Bradshaw wrote: As I've mentioned before, internal consistency checks can be better than comparing against commercial programs, so that way anyone can run and verify them, and they often illustrate interesting math (e.g. verificat

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Florent Hivert
Hi David, > Although it is true that not everyone can run tests against commercial > software, I would have thought a significant proportion of Sage users > could. There is already an interface to Mathematica. Many Sage users and > developers work in universities, which often have Mathema

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Dr. David Kirkby
Robert Bradshaw wrote: As I've mentioned before, internal consistency checks can be better than comparing against commercial programs, so that way anyone can run and verify them, and they often illustrate interesting math (e.g. verification of deep, abstract theorems for specific examples).

[sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Simon King
Hi! On Mar 4, 8:24 am, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > I believe there is also some randomized testing that is done in the   > category code that takes random elements and verifies they have the   > correct properties (e.g. commutativity, associativity, etc.) that has   > exposed some bugs. One technic

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-04 Thread Robert Bradshaw
There are the Wester tests, which we ship and test (the ones we can do at least) http://hg.sagemath.org/sage-main/file/8c4f10086e20/sage/calculus/wester.py I believe there is also some randomized testing that is done in the category code that takes random elements and verifies they have the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-03 Thread Dr. David Kirkby
mhampton wrote: There has been some previous discussion about this on sage-devel, I can't find exactly the thread I remember but here's a somewhat related one: http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/b91c51672ae0f475/ Thank you. Personally I think it makes sense to put

[sage-devel] Re: Randomised testing against Mathematica

2010-03-03 Thread mhampton
There has been some previous discussion about this on sage-devel, I can't find exactly the thread I remember but here's a somewhat related one: http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/b91c51672ae0f475/ Personally I think it makes sense to put the most effort into getting sa