#10682: sum fails with lower bound != 0 or 1 (upgrade maxima to 5.26)
---------------------------------------------------------+------------------
   Reporter:  fmaltey                                    |          Owner:  
burcin                    
       Type:  defect                                     |         Status:  
needs_work                
   Priority:  critical                                   |      Milestone:  
sage-5.0                  
  Component:  symbolics                                  |       Keywords:  
maxima 5.26.0 binomial sum
Work_issues:  domain issue, error handling in nintegral  |       Upstream:  N/A 
                      
   Reviewer:  Jean-Pierre Flori,                         |         Author:  
Dima Pasechnick           
     Merged:                                             |   Dependencies:      
                      
---------------------------------------------------------+------------------

Comment(by nbruin):

 Replying to [comment:43 jpflori]:
 > And the error handling at the end of nintegral should definitely be
 reworked.
 >
 > For example the test "if 'quad_qags' in str(v)" is useless now that
 Maxima behavior has changed.
 >
 > Moreover, I'm not sure the "ERROR in srt(err)" can ever be reached now
 (was it before???).
 >
 > I could not locate the commit corresponding to this change although I
 tried a little hard. Maxima source tree is a little obscure for me. This
 commit should be mentionned in the doc and would help to answer the two
 above remarks about error handling. Some expert of Maxima is needed for
 that.

 I did find
 
[http://maxima.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=maxima/maxima;a=commitdiff;h=df7393f0f2433cd60937e42b7cae624add3ca085
 this commit] in the history of `src/numerical/slatec/quadpack.lisp`. It
 seems to indicate that something about quadpack error reporting has
 changed and may have become more configurable. Perhaps we can configure it
 in a way that the reported errors are more suitable and detectable for us?

 desolve: I think Dima's new approach is acceptable in that it both fixes
 the doctest and documents the regression. Did anybody ever check if the
 returned solution with `domain: complex` is actually correct with some
 crazy combination of branch cut choices?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10682#comment:45>
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.

Reply via email to