In sage 2.6 on a 64bit AMD machine running debian I get:

sage: number_of_partitions(147007)-number_of_partitions_list(147007)
3

In SAGE's Pari/GP:
? numbpart(147007) % 1000
%1 = 536


On a 32bit ubuntu machine I get the majority answer (533) from
everyone: the vendor supplied Pari/GP, from SAGE, and from GAP.



On Jun 30, 5:29 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for you bug report. The function
> number_of_partitions is not in combinat, though it
> is mentioned there in the documentation. The combinat contains
> mostly GAP and Maxima wrappers. The number_of_partitions
> is actually contained in rings/arith.py and is a PARI
> wrapper.
>
> That said, the corresponding GAP function, number_of_partition_list,
> *is* wrapped in combinat.py and yields the same answer:
>
> sage: number_of_partitions_list(147007)-number_of_partitions(147007)
> 0
>
> So, according to your calculation (I don't have Mma to check it),
> either Mma and Combinatorica are both wrong or
> GAP and Pari are both wrong.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> On 6/30/07, Jonathan Hseu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here's an example to reproduce the bug (on Linux x86-64):
>
> > from sage.combinat.combinat import *
> > x=147007
> > number_of_partitions(x)==mathematica('PartitionsP['+str(x)+']')
> > >>False
> > x=147006
> > number_of_partitions(x)==mathematica('PartitionsP['+str(x)+']')
> > >>True
>
> > That's the exact point at which mathematica and sage disagree on the
> > number of partitions.  I verified through another source that
> > mathematica is correct (using Combinatorica... unless both turn out to
> > be wrong).
>
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan Hseu


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/ and http://sage.scipy.org/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to