> On 14 March 2011 16:40, Julien PUYDT <julien.pu...@laposte.net> wrote: > > Le 14/03/2011 14:12, David Kirkby a écrit : > >> Perhaps you can find value of n, such that gamma(n) gives an exact > >> integer result. If that happens on other CPUs too, then I suggest the > >> argument to the doctest is changed. > > > > The solution of finding a "good" integer is fragile : it will break > > anytime wind will change direction. > > > > Snark on #sage-devel > > I take your point it is "fragile". But it might well be the simplest > solution. IMHO, it is probably the best solution. > Julien said that according to IEEE 15 (or 16) digits should be precise enough. Why not test n(gamma1(float(6)),15)? Since we are looking at numerical results with a limited precision it makes sense to limit the test to the precision we are sure of. So Julien what would be the result for the above expression?
Francois This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments. Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more information. -- 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 URL: http://www.sagemath.org
