On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:13:09 -0800
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2010, at 12:40 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> >
> > I was curious about this, so I tried specifying the number of
> > digits:
> >
> > sage: h = integral(sin(x)/x^2, (x, 1, pi/2)); h
> > integrate(sin(x)/x^2, x, 1, 1/2*pi)
> > sa
> > AFAIK, the "_import" module is built by the PIL spkg. Try reinstalling
> > it, eventually you have to issue "export SAGE_BINARY_BUILD=yes"
> > before, in order to make PIL build sanely (I have to do that every
> > time on my production machine).
>
> I tried reinstalling it, running this export
> I'm not suggesting it is a gold standard, but given the results agreed
> reasonably closely with Sage, and were computed to arbitrary precision, then
> I had a reasonable degree of confidence in believing the "failure" was not
> really a failure at all.
>
Thank you for your very clear explanati
On Feb 20, 2:09 pm, "Georg S. Weber"
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> AFAIK, the "_import" module is built by the PIL spkg. Try reinstalling
> it, eventually you have to issue "export SAGE_BINARY_BUILD=yes"
> before, in order to make PIL build sanely (I have to do that every
> time on my production machine).
Erik Lane wrote:
That's almost certainly true. In fact, the result printed by the "failure"
is more accurate than the expected value! I tried this in Mathematica:
This might be a trivial question, but how do you know which number is
more accurate than the other, if those results are machine-de
On 20 Feb., 17:45, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:08 am, mhampton wrote:
>
> > All tests passed on an upgrade from the alpha0, on a 10.6.2 mac.
> > -Marshall
>
> On two separate 10.6.2 machines, I was unable to upgrade successfully:
> after upgrading, any attempt to run Sage would give
> I think the reason Mathematica was invoked is because it can do arbitrary
> precision numerical integration, and a good test to see if the last couple
> of digits are right is to compute the result to much higher precision. (We
> do have arbitrary precision for lots of other stuff, but much of th
Hi Harald,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Harald Schilly
wrote:
> Btw. is mpmath-0.14 now in 4.3.3 or not? ->
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8159
The package mpmath-0.14.spkg wasn't available when I was preparing
Sage 4.3.3.alpha1. I think it would need to wait for Sage 4.3.4.
On Feb 20, 10:30 pm, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
> You can use mpmath ...
Btw. is mpmath-0.14 now in 4.3.3 or not? ->
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8159
h
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-de
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:40 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:11 am, John Cremona wrote:
> > On 19 February 2010 06:32, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> >
> > > This is the final alpha release of Sage 4.3.3. The next release would
> > > be an rc0. The development version of Sage
On Feb 20, 2010, at 12:40 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:11 am, John Cremona wrote:
On 19 February 2010 06:32, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
This is the final alpha release of Sage 4.3.3. The next release
would
be an rc0. The development version of Sage is now in feature freeze
On Feb 19, 9:11 am, John Cremona wrote:
> On 19 February 2010 06:32, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
>
> > This is the final alpha release of Sage 4.3.3. The next release would
> > be an rc0. The development version of Sage is now in feature freeze.
>
> On 32-bit Suse I get this fuzz:
>
> File
On Feb 20, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Erik Lane wrote:
That's almost certainly true. In fact, the result printed by the
"failure"
is more accurate than the expected value! I tried this in
Mathematica:
This might be a trivial question, but how do you know which number is
more accurate than the other
>
> That's almost certainly true. In fact, the result printed by the "failure"
> is more accurate than the expected value! I tried this in Mathematica:
>
This might be a trivial question, but how do you know which number is
more accurate than the other, if those results are machine-dependent?
Or i
Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:18 AM, ma...@mendelu.cz wrote:
This solves the problem with dostests, but I see another problem: we
have two different answers. One of them is wrong. Which one? And why?
And is it O.K. to change doctest instead of fix a bug?
The fun
Hi Minh
thank you very much for explanation. Looks strange for me, but I
cannot understand details - I have no education in computer science.
I wonder, if Maple, Mathematica or Maxima exihibit similar behavior on
various architectures. Does anybody know?
Robert
On 20 ún, 19:26, Minh Nguyen wro
On 20 February 2010 18:26, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:18 AM, ma...@mendelu.cz wrote:
>
>
>
>> This solves the problem with dostests, but I see another problem: we
>> have two different answers. One of them is wrong. Which one? And why?
>>
>> And is it O.K. to c
Hi Robert,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:18 AM, ma...@mendelu.cz wrote:
> This solves the problem with dostests, but I see another problem: we
> have two different answers. One of them is wrong. Which one? And why?
>
> And is it O.K. to change doctest instead of fix a bug?
The function call h.n()
On 20 ún, 18:16, John Cremona wrote:
> >http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8314
>
> Now positively reviewed.
>
> John
This solves the problem with dostests, but I see another problem: we
have two different answers. One of them is wrong. Which one? And why?
And is it O.K. to change doctest
On Feb 19, 11:08 am, mhampton wrote:
> All tests passed on an upgrade from the alpha0, on a 10.6.2 mac.
> -Marshall
On two separate 10.6.2 machines, I was unable to upgrade successfully:
after upgrading, any attempt to run Sage would give me a segfault.
With a build from scratch, all tests passe
> This is the final alpha release of Sage 4.3.3. The next release would
> be an rc0. The development version of Sage is now in feature freeze.
Does that mean only ticket solving a defect will be merged into sage
until sage-4.4.1?
The Sage days 20 are beginning on Monday. I think there will be a b
Another upgrade passed all tests on Ubuntu 9.10 64-bit, on a core i7
860 quad-core machine.
--
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:/
Also, build from source went fine and all tests passed on a 10.6.2 mac.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM, mhampton wrote:
> All tests passed on an upgrade from the alpha0, on a 10.6.2 mac.
> -Marshall
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe fr
And the other tests passed (fresh install)
Linux um-bc107 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Aug 19 06:06:52 UTC 2009 i686
GNU/Linux
Robert
On 19 ún, 19:50, "ma...@mendelu.cz" wrote:
> The same problem on 32 bit debian as reported above
>
> sage -t "devel/sage/sage/misc/functional.py"
> *
All tests passed on an upgrade from the alpha0, on a 10.6.2 mac.
-Marshall
--
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.co
The same problem on 32 bit debian as reported above
sage -t "devel/sage/sage/misc/functional.py"
**
File "/opt/sage-4.3.3.alpha1/devel/sage/sage/misc/functional.py", line
705:
sage: h.n()
Expected:
0.33944794097891573
Got
32 bit debian:
sage -t -long "devel/sage/sage/interfaces/r.py"
[9.6 s]
--
All tests passed!
Total time for all tests: 9.7 seconds
On 19 ún, 18:42, John Cremona wrote:
> and on 64-bit ubuntu I get a different error:
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
