Skip to content

Doctest fix for: series() yields wrong result depending on precision #22959

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
behackl opened this issue May 8, 2017 · 18 comments
Closed

Doctest fix for: series() yields wrong result depending on precision #22959

behackl opened this issue May 8, 2017 · 18 comments

Comments

@behackl
Copy link
Member

behackl commented May 8, 2017

In the current 8.0.beta5 I get the following:

sage: f = x/(1-x^2)
sage: f.series(x==0, 10)
1*x^2 + 1*x^4 + 1*x^6 + 1*x^8 + Order(x^10)
sage: f.series(x==0, 11)
1*x + 1*x^3 + 1*x^5 + 1*x^7 + 1*x^9 + Order(x^11)

This seems to be a regression from somewhere between sage-7.5 (where the result is still correct) and sage-7.6.

Depends on #22969

CC: @rwst

Component: calculus

Author: Ralf Stephan

Branch/Commit: b121061

Reviewer: Benjamin Hackl

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22959

@behackl behackl added this to the sage-8.0 milestone May 8, 2017
@behackl
Copy link
Member Author

behackl commented May 8, 2017

comment:1

As this means that series delivers a mathematically wrong result, I've set the priority to blocker (and this should really be fixed before 8.0).

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 9, 2017

comment:2

pynac/pynac#246

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 9, 2017

Upstream: Reported upstream. Developers acknowledge bug.

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 9, 2017

Changed upstream from Reported upstream. Developers acknowledge bug. to Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 9, 2017

Dependencies: pynac-0.7.7

@kcrisman
Copy link
Member

kcrisman commented May 9, 2017

comment:4

Nice work!

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 25, 2017

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 25, 2017

New commits:

b12106122959: Doctest fix for: series() yields wrong result depending on precision

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 25, 2017

Author: Ralf Stephan

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 25, 2017

Changed upstream from Fixed upstream, in a later stable release. to none

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 25, 2017

Changed dependencies from pynac-0.7.7 to #22969

@rwst
Copy link
Contributor

rwst commented May 25, 2017

Commit: b121061

@rwst rwst changed the title series() yields wrong result depending on precision Doctest fix for: series() yields wrong result depending on precision May 25, 2017
@behackl
Copy link
Member Author

behackl commented May 25, 2017

comment:7

Thanks a lot for your work, Ralf! Patch LGTM, I'm happy to set this to positive_review as soon as the patchbot tested it.

@behackl
Copy link
Member Author

behackl commented May 25, 2017

Reviewer: Benjamin Hackl

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor

comment:8

For your information, the best way to have a patchbot run immediatly on your prefered ticket is to launch your own patchbot yourself on this ticket...

@behackl
Copy link
Member Author

behackl commented May 25, 2017

comment:9

Replying to @fchapoton:

For your information, the best way to have a patchbot run immediatly on your prefered ticket is to launch your own patchbot yourself on this ticket...

Usually I'd do that, thanks. :-)

However, I'm at a conference and have a very unstable internet connection, so I don't want to build the latest beta on my laptop. And as of a rather unlucky coincidence, my VPN connection to our university servers does not work either, so I also can't start the patchbot we have there.

@behackl
Copy link
Member Author

behackl commented May 27, 2017

comment:10

Running make ptestlong on my laptop lets the test run through, except for being stuck on the has_mathematica()-call in src/sage/doctest/external.py. I don't think that this problem is related to the changes on this ticket, so this is positive_review from me.

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented May 27, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants