#19944: asymptotic expansions: singularity analysis
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: behackl | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.1
Component: asymptotic | Resolution:
expansions | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers: Daniel Krenn
Authors: Benjamin Hackl, | Work issues:
Clemens Heuberger | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | 3743f9d9c5794053bc31e2f434590d9cd53efbfd
Branch: u/dkrenn/asy | Stopgaps:
/singularity-analysis-method |
Dependencies: #19532 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by dkrenn):
* status: needs_review => needs_work
* commit: a2e430e09112e37cc301c27cf571ce1acf911b67 =>
3743f9d9c5794053bc31e2f434590d9cd53efbfd
* reviewer: => Daniel Krenn
Comment:
I've reviewed the patch and have the following comments:
1. `result.exact_part() == result`: Maybe create a follow up ticket
implementing `is_exact`.
2. The code
{{{
if isinstance(summand, ExactTerm):
expansion = asymptotic_expansions.\
SingularityAnalysis('Z', alpha=alpha,
zeta=singularity,
precision=precision).subs(Z=self.gen())
return summand.coefficient * expansion
elif isinstance(summand, OTerm):
return (self.gen() ** (alpha - 1)).O()
}}}
is not ideal. It looks like the singularity analysis should be done by
the terms themselves and eventually by the growth groups (since they know
what they are).
3. `(self.gen() ** (alpha - 1)).O()` should depend on the singularity.
4. In some sense the transfer term `(self.gen() ** (alpha - 1)).O()` has
the same status as the expansion
`asymptotic_expansions.SingularityAnalysis`. So a generation in the
generations would be an option. However, I understand, that it is much
simpler, so I do *not* have a strong preference for this.
5. Parameter description `function`: mentioned the word "callable"(?) Say
that it is a function in one variable.
6. Parameter `return_singular_expansions`: in an ideal world, there would
not be a different kind of output (asymptotic expansions vs. named tuple).
However, I understand it is as it is; it seems that there is no other
satisfying solution to this. Am I right?
----
New commits:
||[http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/commit/?id=3743f9d9c5794053bc31e2f434590d9cd53efbfd
3743f9d]||{{{Trac #19944 minor changes during review}}}||
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19944#comment:9>
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
