On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Tim Lahey <tim.la...@gmail.com> wrote: > The problem arises with all the different integration systems. Usually some > kind of simplification is needed on the integral returned, even if there > aren't > multiple solutions. This complicates the testing procedure since the steps to > perform the simplification are often specific to the returned result. > > I'm currently aiming to finish the test suite just for Sage/Maxima and > I'll go back > and address the various issues (like testing SymPy) once that's complete.
Would it be better to test the results numerically? (For instance, evaluate the integral returned and the desired result at 100 random points to high precision, and ensure that the relative error between the answers at each point is small.) Of course, this wouldn't count as a proof that the result was correct, but IMHO it would be good enough (it seems unlikely that integration bugs would result in wrong answers that were numerically almost equivalent to the right answer). (Actually, I might actually trust a numeric result more than a symbolic simplification-based result, given the theoretical possibility that a simplification bug might cancel out an integration bug, leading to a false pass in the test suite; especially if simplification and integration are done in the same system.) Carl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
