Hi,
The package I am building uses newer versions of several components,
and while I believe most of these tests probably are correct, I may be
missing some patch, so, if you can confirm it is correct, or is an
alternate correct response, please let me know.
These are not the only errors, but are a sampling of similar errors:
doc/en/constructions/polynomials.rst +45
sage: print gap.eval("R:= PolynomialRing( GF(97))")
Expected:
PolynomialRing(..., [ x_1 ])
Got:
GF(97)[x_1]
* this should be due to using gap 4.4.12, while sage uses gap 4.4.10
doc/en/constructions/rings.rst +58
sage: R = singular.ring(97, '(a,b,c,d)', 'lp')
sage: I = singular.ideal(['a+b+c+d', 'ab+ad+bc+cd',
'abc+abd+acd+bcd', 'abcd-1'])
sage: R
Expected:
// characteristic : 97
// number of vars : 4
// block 1 : ordering lp
// : names a b c d
// block 2 : ordering C
Got:
// characteristic : 97
// number of vars : 4
// block 1 : ordering lp
// : names abcd
// block 2 : ordering C
* The sage spkg don't have a patch to separate the names, so I am
assuming it is a minor change in singular
doc/en/tutorial/tour_numtheory.rst +94
sage: x = crt(2, 1, 3, 5); x
Expected:
-4
Got:
11
* This is caused by using pari 2.3.4 while sage uses pari 2.3.3
libs/pari/gen.pyx +6781
sage: y = QQ['yy'].0; _ = pari(y) # pari has variable ordering rules
sage: x = QQ['zz'].0; nf = pari(x^2 + 2).nfinit()
sage: nf.nfroots(y^2 + 2)
Expected:
[-zz, zz]
Got:
[Mod(-zz, zz^2 + 2), Mod(zz, zz^2 + 2)]
* Again, due to using newer version of pari
matrix/matrix_double_dense.pyx +983
sage: m = matrix(RDF, 2, range(6)); m
[0.0 1.0 2.0]
[3.0 4.0 5.0]
sage: U, S, V = m.SVD()
sage: U*S*V.transpose() # random low bits
[7.62194127257e-17 1.0 2.0]
[ 3.0 4.0 5.0]
sage: U
[-0.274721127897 -0.961523947641]
[-0.961523947641 0.274721127897]
sage: S
[7.34846922835 0.0 0.0]
[ 0.0 1.0 0.0]
sage: V
Expected:
[-0.392540507864 0.824163383692 0.408248290464]
[-0.560772154092 0.137360563949 -0.816496580928]
[ -0.72900380032 -0.549442255795 0.408248290464]
Got:
[-0.392540507864 0.824163383692 -0.408248290464]
[-0.560772154092 0.137360563949 0.816496580928]
[ -0.72900380032 -0.549442255795 -0.408248290464]
* This one gives significantly different result, but is not easy to do
an alternate build with sage's version of quaddouble
* I think I will switch to use sage's version. Sage uses quaddouble
2.2.p9 (patchlevel 9), while I packaged upstream
quaddouble 2.2.7
rings/real_rqdf.pyx +463
sage: RQDF(2^60 + 9 )
Expected:
1.15292150460684698500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000e18
Got:
1e+18
* Again should be a quaddouble issue. But I can see that sage result
is correct, while the quaddouble I am using is truncating the result.
rings/polynomial/toy_d_basis.py +171
sage: from sage.rings.polynomial.toy_d_basis import gpol
sage: P.<x, y, z> = PolynomialRing(IntegerRing(), 3, order='lex')
sage: f = x^2 - 1
sage: g = 2*x*y - z
sage: gpol(f,g)
Expected:
x^2*y - y
Got:
x^2*y - x*z + y
* Not sure what is the cause, neither if this is an alternate correct result...
calculus/calculus.py +1068
sage: f = log(log(x))/log(x)
sage: forget(); assume(x<-2); lim(f, x=0, taylor=True)
Expected:
limit(log(log(x))/log(x), x, 0)
Got:
0
* This is when using newer maxima
Thanks,
Paulo
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
