On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:31:18 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > Nevertheless, here is a minimal example: > > https://gist.githubusercontent.com/gagern/9320350/raw/d1896f7a5a05b24075098941c9c3ff156ca6c139/MinimalReprodcing6.sage > > It is minimal in the following sense: For the whole expression, the > minpoly call fails with the claimed error message. For each operand, > however, it succeeds. If I recreate each operand from its minimal > polynomial, the call succeeds as well. So it must be not only the value > stored in the first operand, but also the way it is encoded, represented, > references other things and so on. The whole thing is far from minimal in > terms of code length, but as I said, I can't make the expression any easier > and still reproduce the issue. In terms of number of commands, it should be > fairly close to minimal, but the command defining the expression is huge. >
Using pdb, I've managed to look at the stack trace where the exception was raised, and obtain the polynomial which gets passed to pari. At https://gist.github.com/gagern/9320350#file-minimalreproducing8-sage I've used this to create yet another minimal reproducing example, MinimalReproducing8.sage, which is a lot shorter than my previous attempt. It seems that this particular polynomial cannot be handled, for some reason. I guess now is a good time for the bug report, even though the huge numbers involved still make this example longer than I'd whish for. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
