#12449: Improve the way that sage evaluates symbolic functions on basic types
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: bober | Owner: bober
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.0
Component: symbolics | Keywords: gamma function
Work_issues: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Burcin Erocal | Author: Jonathan Bober
Merged: | Dependencies:
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Comment(by bober):
Replying to [comment:3 burcin]:
> Replying to [comment:2 burcin]:
>
> > AFAICT (without applying the patch and testing),
attachment:12449.patch removes the `try/except` block around `return
getattr(args[0], self._name)()`, disabling the call to
`BuiltinFunction.__call__` later on in the function body.
>
> Sorry. I was looking at the code after applying
attachment:trac_1173-move_call.patch:ticket:1173. There is no `try/except`
block in the original code.
>
> Regarding the changes to `sage/rings/real_double.pyx`: IIRC, python's
math module just calls the underlying libc functions. On ARM won't this
introduce new errors?
For the gamma function, at least, python has its own implementation. Of
course, that function itself might call some underlying libc functions, so
maybe it won't be entirely consistent, now that I think about it.
In the bit of testing that I did, math.gamma was less accurate than
tgammal on my computer, but much more accurate than gsl's gamma function.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12449#comment:4>
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.
