On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
> wrote:
>> On 08/ 5/10 06:17 PM, Sergey Bochkanov wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
Hmmm... Didn't thought about this situation yet. Definitely we can't
solve this problem with any kind o
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 08/ 5/10 06:17 PM, Sergey Bochkanov wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>> Hmmm... Didn't thought about this situation yet. Definitely we can't
>>> solve this problem with any kind of regular expressions. One
>>> possible solution is to
On 08/ 5/10 06:55 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
BTW, do you have any ideas why the second failure at #9099 might occur
sage -t -long devel/sage/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
**
File
On 08/ 5/10 06:17 PM, Sergey Bochkanov wrote:
Hello,
Hmmm... Didn't thought about this situation yet. Definitely we can't
solve this problem with any kind of regular expressions. One
possible solution is to round data before printing. So both
1.01 and 0.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> BTW, do you have any ideas why the second failure at #9099 might occur
>
> sage -t -long devel/sage/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
> **
> File
> "/home/palmieri/fulvia/sage-4.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:44 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> With all the numerical noise issues I've seen in Sage, the three dots
> solves its. So if we expect
>
> 1.00
> but get
> 1.01
> we can change that to
> 1.0...
> and the test will pass.
>
> However, what if we
On 5 August 2010 17:57, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Aug 5, 6:44 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
>> With all the numerical noise issues I've seen in Sage, the three dots
>> solves its. So if we expect
>>
>> 1.00
>> but get
>> 1.01
>> we can change that to
>> 1.0...
>> a
Hello,
> Hmmm... Didn't thought about this situation yet. Definitely we can't
> solve this problem with any kind of regular expressions. One
> possible solution is to round data before printing. So both
> 1.01 and 0.99 will become 1.00.
...however, we
Hello, David.
You wrote 5 августа 2010 г., 20:44:53:
> With all the numerical noise issues I've seen in Sage, the three dots
> solves its. So if we expect
> 1.00
> but get
> 1.01
> we can change that to
> 1.0...
> and the test will pass.
> However, what if we ge
On Aug 5, 6:44 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
> 2010/8/5 Sergey Bochkanov :
> > Hello, Jason.
>
> > You wrote 5 августа 2010 г., 20:17:11:
> >>> (depending on problem and its stability properties). However I don't
> >>> know how to do it using doctest framework. Python tries to output
> >>> number
2010/8/5 Sergey Bochkanov :
> Hello, Jason.
>
> You wrote 5 августа 2010 г., 20:17:11:
>>> (depending on problem and its stability properties). However I don't
>>> know how to do it using doctest framework. Python tries to output
>>> numbers with full precision,and there is no way to te
Hello, Jason.
You wrote 5 августа 2010 г., 20:17:11:
>> (depending on problem and its stability properties). However I don't
>> know how to do it using doctest framework. Python tries to output
>> numbers with full precision,and there is no way to tell doctest
>> framework to compare d
On 8/5/10 8:41 AM, Sergey Bochkanov wrote:
Hello, David
You wrote 4 августа 2010 г., 14:49:47:
8:
sage: maxima('asinh(1.0)')
Expected:
0.881373587019543
Got:
.8813735870195429
Clearly there is some numerical noise issues, which need to be
investigated, but are probably t
13 matches
Mail list logo
