#20051: Singularity analysis: fix and speed up singularity analysis (log-type)
without renormalization
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: cheuberg | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.1
Component: asymptotic | Resolution:
expansions | Merged in:
Keywords: singularity | Reviewers:
analysis | Work issues:
Authors: Clemens Heuberger | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | 4f32094ab2f8178738eca5049580e82dcd0d1900
Branch: u/cheuberg/asy | Stopgaps:
/improve-singularity-analysis- |
log-not-normalized |
Dependencies: #20020, #20056 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by behackl):
Replying to [comment:7 cheuberg]:
> Replying to [comment:6 behackl]:
> > Hello! I've reviewed your changes, they look good to me in general. I
only have some minor comments:
> >
> > - I'm not sure whether so much math should occur in the `INPUT`-block
in the description of the `normalized`-parameter. What about writing
something like "determines, whether the normalization factor `z^-(\beta +
\delta)` is taken into account"? The detailed description could either go
into a `NOTE`-block or just be in the extended method description (before
`INPUT`).
>
> I do not like a description like "whether the normalization factor ...
is taken into account" because this is not a very clear description. I
prefer to clearly state the fact, so that no ambiguities can arise.
>
I agree that unabiguity is more important than brevity in this case.
> If you want me to move this second variant to the top, say "the n-th
coefficient of ... (if `normalize=True`, the default) or of ... (if
`normalize=False`), I can do that.
>
Yes, I think that mentioning the parameter in the extended function
description too would be a good idea. Could you add such a statement?
> > - I see that you introduced a doctest which checks for the (currently)
erroneous output in
[http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/commit/?id=b336046c20b400eb5ecdde199f35e1eec2793a47
b336046]. Was there no such doctest before, or have I missed something?
>
> There was one incorrect doctest in the growth group `log(x)^2` where the
incorrect result was stated (apparently, nobody checked whether the result
there is correct). In any case, I wanted to have a doctest checking the
correct behaviour right at the source of the problem.
I see, I've missed these lines when comparing diffs. The output of the
doctest is now mathematically correct.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20051#comment:8>
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.
