And this just came over the scipy mailing list:
[quote]
Robert Kern wrote:
Ah, I think found it using this clue. It's a bug in SPECFUN. The
IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION statement is missing A so A0 is REAL
rather than DOUBLE. Fixing that makes both of them go through the same
code path.
Thank you for this bug report. I wonder if you would be kind enough to
include some commented code in an email, so someone can fill out a trac
report for the issue?
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:13 PM, M. Yurko myu...@gmail.com wrote:
I have noticed recently that when evaluating the EI function
Sure, here are some examples of what I did:
#First, and example of the bug
Ei(20)
Output: 25615646.4145 + 6.28318530718*I #it should instead be just
25615646.4145
Ei(19)
Output: 9950907.25105 #the error doesn't occur here
-exponential_integral_1(-20).n(digits=50)
Output: 25615652.664056588
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:15 PM, M. Yurko myu...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, here are some examples of what I did:
#First, and example of the bug
Ei(20)
Output: 25615646.4145 + 6.28318530718*I #it should instead be just
25615646.4145
Ei(19)
Output: 9950907.25105 #the error doesn't occur here
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:15 PM, M. Yurko myu...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, here are some examples of what I did:
snip
Thanks!!
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:37 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
A quick remark: The Pari Ei only works with *real* input, whereas the
scipy one works
