On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:49 AM Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jeremy Tan <reddeloo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Perhaps I need your help, William. The associated trac ticket > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521 was marked invalid offhand by the > > release manager Frédéric Chapoton despite me managing to fix all the > > doctests simply and the ticket itself not conflicting with any Sage > > policies. > > > > He claims that "Mr Luschny has not published any mathematical article" – > > but his manifesto is indistinguishable from an article in letter from (it > > is a reply to Donald Knuth) and his introduction to the Bernoulli function > > is even more of an article. I believe I have responded in kind to his claim > > that B_1 = -½ is "standard". > > > > There must be a way to get Chapoton out of the way here so we can effect > > the deprecation. >
I'm probably too late on this, but I'd like to suggest a sort of compromise: According to wikipedia, there is no standard. There's a B+ (favored by NIST and "modern authors") and a B- (favored by Donald Knuth some others). Why don't we create a B+ and a B-? This will make the OP happy. To make William Stein happy (or happiest), we (temporarily?) set B=B+, so he doesn't have to change any code. > Frederic has not been helpful here, unfortunately - sorry, Jeremy. > I've made a comment to this effect on the ticket. People communicated > here on the topic, it was deemed to have a merit, and closing tickets > like this is just putting people off. > > Dima > > > > > On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 01:49:48 UTC+8 wst...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 10:04 AM davida...@gmail.com > >> <davida...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > I'm curious if the change breaks any code anywhere else in Sage (e.g., > >> > > maybe for computing q-expansions of modular forms?)... > >> > > >> > You guessed right. I did a quick local change to the bernoulli function > >> > and it indeed breaks some tests in sage/modular/modform: > >> > >> I created all of the files listed below. My guess is that code for > >> computing q-expansions of Eisenstein series assume B(1) is what it is, > >> and one would just need to change that code by changing a sign > >> somewhere. > >> > >> William > >> > >> > > >> > ~/sage$ ./sage -t src/sage/modular/modform > >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 > >> > src/sage/modular/modform/ambient.py # 1 doctest failed > >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 > >> > src/sage/modular/modform/element.py # 11 doctests failed > >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 > >> > src/sage/modular/modform/ambient_g1.py # 1 doctest failed > >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 > >> > src/sage/modular/modform/eisenstein_submodule.py # 4 doctests failed > >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 > >> > src/sage/modular/modform/ring.py # 3 doctests failed > >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 > >> > src/sage/modular/modform/constructor.py # 1 doctest failed > >> > > >> > > >> > However, I would be in favor for this change. I would also be glad to > >> > lend a hand for fixing those doctests. > >> > Le samedi 10 septembre 2022 à 12:50:44 UTC-4, wst...@gmail.com a écrit : > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 7:17 AM Jeremy Tan <redde...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > My name is Jeremy Tan, or Parcly Taxel in the furry/MLP art scene. As > >> >> > of this post I am a recent graduate from the National University of > >> >> > Singapore with two degrees in maths and computer science. > >> >> > > >> >> > Over the past month I had a good read of Peter Luschny's Bernoulli > >> >> > Manifesto (http://luschny.de/math/zeta/The-Bernoulli-Manifesto.html) > >> >> > and was thoroughly convinced that B_1 (the first Bernoulli number) > >> >> > has to be +½, not -½. (Much of Luschny's argument centres on being > >> >> > able to (1) interpolate the Bernoulli numbers when B_1 = +½ with an > >> >> > entire function intimately related to the zeta function, and (2) > >> >> > extend the range of validity of or simplify several important > >> >> > equations like the Euler–Maclaurin formula. Have a read yourself > >> >> > though – it is close to divine truth.) > >> >> > > >> >> > So I went to SymPy – one of SageMath's dependencies, and where a > >> >> > discussion on this topic was open > >> >> > (https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/23866) – and successfully > >> >> > merged several PRs there (https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/23926) > >> >> > implementing both that change and some functions in Luschny's "An > >> >> > introduction to the Bernoulli function" > >> >> > (https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.06743). > >> >> > > >> >> > I thought I was also done with changing B_1 = +½ for SageMath, but > >> >> > then someone pointed out that the latter currently uses other > >> >> > libraries that all have B_1 = -½. I have already opened a PR for one > >> >> > such library, FLINT, to change B_1 = +½ there > >> >> > (https://github.com/wbhart/flint2/pull/1179). However Fredrik > >> >> > Johansson has advised me that I take the discussion right here, to > >> >> > sage-devel, because (in his words) > >> >> > > >> >> > > if FLINT and Arb change their definitions but the Sage developers > >> >> > > decide that they don't like it, they will just treat the new > >> >> > > behavior as a bug and add a special case in the wrapper to return > >> >> > > B_1 = -½. > >> >> > > >> >> > So my proposal is to special-case it the other way – before the > >> >> > backend selection in Sage's Bernoulli code > >> >> > (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/08202bc1ba7caea46327908db8e3715d1adf6f9a/src/sage/arith/misc.py#L349), > >> >> > add a check for argument 1 and immediately return +½ if that is the > >> >> > case. This also has the advantage of bypassing libraries that haven't > >> >> > or don't want to change. > >> >> > > >> >> > What do you think? > >> >> > >> >> It could be done via the "1 year deprecation policy". I.e., return the > >> >> current value by default with a warning message > >> >> (and note about an option to change it) for the next year, then when > >> >> there is a release in late 2023 (?), the default would change. This > >> >> would give people time to update their code. > >> >> > >> >> I have no comment on the pros and cons of this personally, though I'm > >> >> curious if the change breaks any code anywhere else in Sage (e.g., > >> >> maybe for computing q-expansions of modular forms?)... > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Jeremy Tan / Parcly Taxel > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> >> > Groups "sage-devel" group. > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >> >> > send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. > >> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit > >> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGYgO94gF%3DBKo7gRnUj8c3H0bJyuLp_Apr%3D8Y9NC%2BFM%2BSZHNOg%40mail.gmail.com. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> William (http://wstein.org) > >> > > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > Groups "sage-devel" group. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > >> > an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. > >> > To view this discussion on the web visit > >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/da3c85ec-1442-4c60-a714-fba2f14f908bn%40googlegroups.com. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> William (http://wstein.org) > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "sage-devel" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/3fe77fe4-266e-4650-ae15-cc0f436b1b28n%40googlegroups.com. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq2CbfNa8d_sw9BaWPH_-vFEERq7Mqy5vSqoFnpryBv_-A%40mail.gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAEQuuAUiRoZ_Q%3DNc_daLTQs6Ny%3D6KFx%2Bp%3DqE8VLccn8HQZb%2BEQ%40mail.gmail.com.
