On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jeremy Tan <reddeloo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps I need your help, William. The associated trac ticket > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521 was marked invalid offhand by the > release manager Frédéric Chapoton despite me managing to fix all the doctests > simply and the ticket itself not conflicting with any Sage policies. > > He claims that "Mr Luschny has not published any mathematical article" – but > his manifesto is indistinguishable from an article in letter from (it is a > reply to Donald Knuth) and his introduction to the Bernoulli function is even > more of an article. I believe I have responded in kind to his claim that B_1 > = -½ is "standard". > > There must be a way to get Chapoton out of the way here so we can effect the > deprecation.
Frederic has not been helpful here, unfortunately - sorry, Jeremy. I've made a comment to this effect on the ticket. People communicated here on the topic, it was deemed to have a merit, and closing tickets like this is just putting people off. Dima > > On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 01:49:48 UTC+8 wst...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 10:04 AM davida...@gmail.com >> <davida...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > I'm curious if the change breaks any code anywhere else in Sage (e.g., >> > > maybe for computing q-expansions of modular forms?)... >> > >> > You guessed right. I did a quick local change to the bernoulli function >> > and it indeed breaks some tests in sage/modular/modform: >> >> I created all of the files listed below. My guess is that code for >> computing q-expansions of Eisenstein series assume B(1) is what it is, >> and one would just need to change that code by changing a sign >> somewhere. >> >> William >> >> > >> > ~/sage$ ./sage -t src/sage/modular/modform >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 >> > src/sage/modular/modform/ambient.py # 1 doctest failed >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 >> > src/sage/modular/modform/element.py # 11 doctests failed >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 >> > src/sage/modular/modform/ambient_g1.py # 1 doctest failed >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 >> > src/sage/modular/modform/eisenstein_submodule.py # 4 doctests failed >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 >> > src/sage/modular/modform/ring.py # 3 doctests failed >> > sage -t --random-seed=279226112023210448433794639443228726052 >> > src/sage/modular/modform/constructor.py # 1 doctest failed >> > >> > >> > However, I would be in favor for this change. I would also be glad to lend >> > a hand for fixing those doctests. >> > Le samedi 10 septembre 2022 à 12:50:44 UTC-4, wst...@gmail.com a écrit : >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 7:17 AM Jeremy Tan <redde...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > My name is Jeremy Tan, or Parcly Taxel in the furry/MLP art scene. As >> >> > of this post I am a recent graduate from the National University of >> >> > Singapore with two degrees in maths and computer science. >> >> > >> >> > Over the past month I had a good read of Peter Luschny's Bernoulli >> >> > Manifesto (http://luschny.de/math/zeta/The-Bernoulli-Manifesto.html) >> >> > and was thoroughly convinced that B_1 (the first Bernoulli number) has >> >> > to be +½, not -½. (Much of Luschny's argument centres on being able to >> >> > (1) interpolate the Bernoulli numbers when B_1 = +½ with an entire >> >> > function intimately related to the zeta function, and (2) extend the >> >> > range of validity of or simplify several important equations like the >> >> > Euler–Maclaurin formula. Have a read yourself though – it is close to >> >> > divine truth.) >> >> > >> >> > So I went to SymPy – one of SageMath's dependencies, and where a >> >> > discussion on this topic was open >> >> > (https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/23866) – and successfully merged >> >> > several PRs there (https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/23926) >> >> > implementing both that change and some functions in Luschny's "An >> >> > introduction to the Bernoulli function" >> >> > (https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.06743). >> >> > >> >> > I thought I was also done with changing B_1 = +½ for SageMath, but then >> >> > someone pointed out that the latter currently uses other libraries that >> >> > all have B_1 = -½. I have already opened a PR for one such library, >> >> > FLINT, to change B_1 = +½ there >> >> > (https://github.com/wbhart/flint2/pull/1179). However Fredrik Johansson >> >> > has advised me that I take the discussion right here, to sage-devel, >> >> > because (in his words) >> >> > >> >> > > if FLINT and Arb change their definitions but the Sage developers >> >> > > decide that they don't like it, they will just treat the new behavior >> >> > > as a bug and add a special case in the wrapper to return B_1 = -½. >> >> > >> >> > So my proposal is to special-case it the other way – before the backend >> >> > selection in Sage's Bernoulli code >> >> > (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/08202bc1ba7caea46327908db8e3715d1adf6f9a/src/sage/arith/misc.py#L349), >> >> > add a check for argument 1 and immediately return +½ if that is the >> >> > case. This also has the advantage of bypassing libraries that haven't >> >> > or don't want to change. >> >> > >> >> > What do you think? >> >> >> >> It could be done via the "1 year deprecation policy". I.e., return the >> >> current value by default with a warning message >> >> (and note about an option to change it) for the next year, then when >> >> there is a release in late 2023 (?), the default would change. This >> >> would give people time to update their code. >> >> >> >> I have no comment on the pros and cons of this personally, though I'm >> >> curious if the change breaks any code anywhere else in Sage (e.g., >> >> maybe for computing q-expansions of modular forms?)... >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Jeremy Tan / Parcly Taxel >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >> > Groups "sage-devel" group. >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> >> > an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. >> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGYgO94gF%3DBKo7gRnUj8c3H0bJyuLp_Apr%3D8Y9NC%2BFM%2BSZHNOg%40mail.gmail.com. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> William (http://wstein.org) >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "sage-devel" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> > email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/da3c85ec-1442-4c60-a714-fba2f14f908bn%40googlegroups.com. >> >> >> >> -- >> William (http://wstein.org) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/3fe77fe4-266e-4650-ae15-cc0f436b1b28n%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq2CbfNa8d_sw9BaWPH_-vFEERq7Mqy5vSqoFnpryBv_-A%40mail.gmail.com.
