New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
incomplete gamma function bugs for certain arguments #17328
Comments
comment:2
Possibly - even likely - related is #11164. |
comment:3
I can't seem to reproduce this in Sage 6.4:
In fact, the incomplete gamma function is evaluated using PARI, and the bug appears to have been fixed by the latest PARI upgrade (see #15767):
|
comment:4
Interesting and confirmed. Of course, possibly due to something completely different, we now have
as opposed to a wacky plot, no plot. |
comment:5
Replying to @kcrisman:
That is because of a patch I made at #7099; it assumed that the parent had a We should also add a doctest for the original bug. |
Commit: |
Branch: u/pbruin/17328-incgam |
comment:7
Replying to @kcrisman:
It would be good if you (or someone else) could try plotting this with the above patch and check if it looks good to you. |
Author: Peter Bruin |
Changed keywords from none to incomplete gamma function |
comment:8
Seems to give correct answers in various precisions.
is a very nice straight line just below zero now. And the imaginary part seems to be consistently pi for t>1. And the fix is a good one.
Did you want to add
as well then, or is the example you have with the actual antideriv and floats sufficient? |
comment:9
Passes relevant tests, so other than that question we're good to go. |
comment:10
Replying to @kcrisman:
OK, thanks!
I don't think it is necessary to add another doctest for the integral; this would just test in addition that Maxima computes the correct antiderivative. Of course the above command was how the bug was originally found, but I don't really see why we should doctest exactly that command. What I meant to say is "add a doctest to show that the PARI bug has been fixed". |
Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman |
Changed branch from u/pbruin/17328-incgam to |
Changed commit from |
See this sage-support thread for details.
We get the antiderivative and answer from Maxima, which evaluates this correctly numerically.
See in particular this ugly plot.
And even that we have to call
real()
to remove the numerical noise is not good...See possibly also here and here and possibly even #16697.
CC: @rwst
Component: calculus
Keywords: incomplete gamma function
Author: Peter Bruin
Branch:
3cae7c8
Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17328
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: