On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:13:09 -0800
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2010, at 12:40 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> >
> > I was curious about this, so I tried specifying the number of
> > digits:
> >
> > sage: h = integral(sin(x)/x^2, (x, 1, pi/2)); h
> > integrate(sin(x)/x^2, x, 1, 1/2*pi)
> > sa
> 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 explanati
Erik Lane wrote:
That's almost certainly true. In fact, the result printed by the "failure"
is more accurate than the expected value! I tried this in Mathematica:
This might be a trivial question, but how do you know which number is
more accurate than the other, if those results are machine-de
> I think the reason Mathematica was invoked is because it can do arbitrary
> precision numerical integration, and a good test to see if the last couple
> of digits are right is to compute the result to much higher precision. (We
> do have arbitrary precision for lots of other stuff, but much of th
Hi Harald,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Harald Schilly
wrote:
> Btw. is mpmath-0.14 now in 4.3.3 or not? ->
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8159
The package mpmath-0.14.spkg wasn't available when I was preparing
Sage 4.3.3.alpha1. I think it would need to wait for Sage 4.3.4.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:40 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:11 am, John Cremona wrote:
> > On 19 February 2010 06:32, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> >
> > > This is the final alpha release of Sage 4.3.3. The next release would
> > > be an rc0. The development version of Sage
On Feb 20, 2010, at 12:40 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:11 am, John Cremona wrote:
On 19 February 2010 06:32, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
This is the final alpha release of Sage 4.3.3. The next release
would
be an rc0. The development version of Sage is now in feature freeze
On Feb 20, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Erik Lane wrote:
That's almost certainly true. In fact, the result printed by the
"failure"
is more accurate than the expected value! I tried this in
Mathematica:
This might be a trivial question, but how do you know which number is
more accurate than the other
>
> That's almost certainly true. In fact, the result printed by the "failure"
> is more accurate than the expected value! I tried this in Mathematica:
>
This might be a trivial question, but how do you know which number is
more accurate than the other, if those results are machine-dependent?
Or i
Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:18 AM, ma...@mendelu.cz wrote:
This solves the problem with dostests, but I see another problem: we
have two different answers. One of them is wrong. Which one? And why?
And is it O.K. to change doctest instead of fix a bug?
The fun
On 20 February 2010 18:26, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:18 AM, ma...@mendelu.cz wrote:
>
>
>
>> This solves the problem with dostests, but I see another problem: we
>> have two different answers. One of them is wrong. Which one? And why?
>>
>> And is it O.K. to c
Hi Robert,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:18 AM, ma...@mendelu.cz wrote:
> This solves the problem with dostests, but I see another problem: we
> have two different answers. One of them is wrong. Which one? And why?
>
> And is it O.K. to change doctest instead of fix a bug?
The function call h.n()
Also, build from source went fine and all tests passed on a 10.6.2 mac.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM, mhampton wrote:
> All tests passed on an upgrade from the alpha0, on a 10.6.2 mac.
> -Marshall
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe fr
13 matches
Mail list logo
