#15360: Make RealIntervalField more reliable
-------------------------+-----------------------------
Reporter: tmonteil | Owner: tmonteil
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.13
Component: numerical | Keywords: RIF
Merged in: | Authors:
Reviewers: | Report Upstream: N/A
Work issues: | Branch:
Commit: | Dependencies:
Stopgaps: |
-------------------------+-----------------------------
`Real interval field` relies on MPFI, which is reliable. But Sage uses it
in a wrong way in various places in the code, making the use of `Real
interval field` not reliable, hence providing a wrong feeling of security.
Here are two examples:
{{{
sage: max(RIF(2,3), RIF(1,4)).endpoints()
(2.00000000000000, 3.00000000000000)
}}}
{{{
sage: x = -(25510582*pi - 80143857)/(52746197*pi - 165707065)
sage: int(x)
ValueError: Calling floor() on infinity or NaN
}}}
(this example is related to this ask question :
http://ask.sagemath.org/question/3179/continued-fraction-of-pi-by-hand)
Instead of fixing small holes when we fall on them, the aim of this ticket
is to audit Sage use of `RealIntervalField` (list to be enlarged):
- check that all python builtin functions are overwritten for
`RealIntervalField` (or work consistently by default).
- grep the Sage source code and check that `RealIntervalField` is not
misused.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15360>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
