#10187: Update ecl and maxima
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reporter: vbraun
| Owner: tbd
Type: defect
| Status: needs_work
Priority: major
| Milestone: sage-4.6.1
Component: packages
| Keywords:
Author: Volker Braun, David Kirkby
| Upstream: Workaround found; Bug reported upstream.
Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman, David Kirkby, Volker Braun, Leif Leonhardy
| Merged:
Work_issues:
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Comment(by vbraun):
Replying to [comment:99 drkirkby]:
>> * '''maxima-5.22.1.patch''' SPKG.txt looks OK, but you will need to
find someone that know more about Lisp than me to tell you if that's
correct.
The only Lisp change is adding the one line `(setf asdf::*user-cache*
(truename "./lisp-cache"))` to asdf (Lisp build system). This was actually
written by Nils Bruin in #8645, I just collected the patch. So I'll
positively review that line myself, if I may.
> * '''trac_10187_fix_easy_doctests.patch'''
> 1) There are these numerical results. Has anyone independently verified
this are correct?
> [2.6789385347..., -8.3905259853..., 26.662447494..., -80.683148377...]
> On what basis was the number of significant digits selected?
The preceeding (long) symbolic expression changed in some trivial ways and
I added the numerical evaluation to make sure that the old and new
symbolic expression are the same.
> As a matter of interest, do we know if anyone every verify the original
horrid looking symbolic integral is correct?
I'm not the original author. All I know is that it is as correct in the
patched doctest as it was before my patch.
> 2) Why was the doctest:
> {{{
> integral(abs(x), x, 0, a)
> }}}
> changed to:
> {{{
> integral(abs(x)*x, x, 0, a)
> }}}
The old maxima could not perform the old integral, but the new maxima
version can do it. To keep testing the assume facility and maxima error
reporting, I made the integral more difficult.
> '''sage/plot/plot3d/transform.pyx''' Do we know if that horrible looking
result is correct? I see it is a simple change from the previous horrible
looking result, but how do we know if the previous one is correct? If, as
I suspect, this has not been verified by hand or with another package,
then we should write that fact.
The old and new maxima actually yield different expressions because of
some branch choice issue with the square roots. I'm not the original
author, but I think this doctest only shows that maxima doesn't blow up
with horrible expressions. I don't think anyone verified the original
version. If you want to go through all maxima doctests and annotate them
with a manual computation then that is great, but maybe material for a
different ticket.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10187#comment:101>
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
