further numpy type conversions #6506

robertwb · 2009-07-10T06:53:49Z

Followup to #5081, depends on Python 2.6

Better handling of ZZ, QQ and CC now supported.

CC: @sagetrac-cwitty

Component: numerical

Author: Robert Bradshaw, Jason Grout

Reviewer: Jason Grout, Robert Bradshaw, Minh Van Nguyen

Merged: Sage 4.1.1.rc0

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6506

jasongrout · 2009-07-18T23:57:17Z

comment:2

Attachment: 6506-numpy-types.patch.gz

Carl, as one of the resident experts on precision issues, could you glance at the last part of this patch, which touches real_mpfr.pyx and seems to deal with precision issues?

jasongrout · 2009-07-19T03:38:08Z

apply on top of previous patch

jasongrout · 2009-07-19T03:44:02Z

comment:3

Attachment: trac-6506-doc-fixes.patch.gz

I posted a patch which fixes lots of the documentation errors on #5081. There are still some problems.

printing issues, presumably because of the work from the patch on this ticket on the precision code. It appears there is one less zero printed in numbers.

$ sage -t complex_number.pyx 
sage -t  "devel/sage-main/sage/rings/complex_number.pyx"    
**********************************************************************
File "/home/grout/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/complex_number.pyx", line 1917:
    sage: ComplexNumber(1.000000000000000000000000000,2)
Expected:
    1.000000000000000000000000000 + 2.000000000000000000000000000*I
Got:
    1.00000000000000000000000000 + 2.00000000000000000000000000*I
**********************************************************************
File "/home/grout/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/complex_number.pyx", line 1919:
    sage: ComplexNumber(1,2.000000000000000000000)
Expected:
    1.000000000000000000000 + 2.000000000000000000000*I
Got:
    1.00000000000000000000 + 2.00000000000000000000*I
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   2 of   9 in __main__.example_74
***Test Failed*** 2 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /home/grout/sage/tmp/.doctest_complex_number.py
	 [11.8 s]
exit code: 1024
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following tests failed:


	sage -t  "devel/sage-main/sage/rings/complex_number.pyx"
Total time for all tests: 11.8 seconds


$ sage -t real_mpfr.pyx 
sage -t  "devel/sage-main/sage/rings/real_mpfr.pyx"         
**********************************************************************
File "/home/grout/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/real_mpfr.pyx", line 4299:
    sage: RealNumber('1.0000000000000000000000000000000000')
Expected:
    1.0000000000000000000000000000000000
Got:
    1.000000000000000000000000000000000
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   1 of   9 in __main__.example_126
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /home/grout/sage/tmp/.doctest_real_mpfr.py
	 [15.1 s]
exit code: 1024
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following tests failed:


	sage -t  "devel/sage-main/sage/rings/real_mpfr.pyx"
Total time for all tests: 15.1 seconds

Another error pointed out on Make numpy play nice with Sage types #5081 that is deeper than a printing issue. There appears to be a bug in the code---the same variable is used in a list comprehension as is used in an enclosing loop. I rewrote some of the code to not use some numpy and string parsing, instead using python zip and string join methods. However, there still seems to be an error. Can someone more familiar with the code look at this? I think all of these errors stem from the same problem.

$ sage -t rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py 
sage -t  "devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py"
**********************************************************************
File "/home/grout/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 156:
    sage: T = sage.rings.number_field.totallyreal_rel.tr_data_rel(F, 2, 2000)
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test
        self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example
        OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example
        compileflags, 1) in test.globs
      File "<doctest __main__.example_3[3]>", line 1, in <module>
        T = sage.rings.number_field.totallyreal_rel.tr_data_rel(F, Integer(2), Integer(2000))###line 156:
    sage: T = sage.rings.number_field.totallyreal_rel.tr_data_rel(F, 2, 2000)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 200, in __init__
        anm1s[i] += sum([m*Z_Fbasis[i]*adj[i].__int__()//adj[self.d].__int__() for i in range(self.d)])
    IndexError: list index out of range
**********************************************************************
File "/home/grout/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 568:
    sage: enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, 2, 2000)
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test
        self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example
        OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example
        compileflags, 1) in test.globs
      File "<doctest __main__.example_5[4]>", line 1, in <module>
        enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, Integer(2), Integer(2000))###line 568:
    sage: enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, 2, 2000)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 646, in enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel
        T = tr_data_rel(F,m,B,a)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 200, in __init__
        anm1s[i] += sum([m*Z_Fbasis[i]*adj[i].__int__()//adj[self.d].__int__() for i in range(self.d)])
    IndexError: list index out of range
**********************************************************************
File "/home/grout/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 577:
    sage: ls = enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, 2, 10^4)
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test
        self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example
        OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example
        compileflags, 1) in test.globs
      File "<doctest __main__.example_5[6]>", line 1, in <module>
        ls = enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, Integer(2), Integer(10)**Integer(4))###line 577:
    sage: ls = enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, 2, 10^4)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 646, in enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel
        T = tr_data_rel(F,m,B,a)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 200, in __init__
        anm1s[i] += sum([m*Z_Fbasis[i]*adj[i].__int__()//adj[self.d].__int__() for i in range(self.d)])
    IndexError: list index out of range
**********************************************************************
File "/home/grout/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 578:
    sage: print "ignore this";  ls # random (the second factor is platform-dependent)
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test
        self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example
        OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example
        compileflags, 1) in test.globs
      File "<doctest __main__.example_5[7]>", line 1, in <module>
        print "ignore this";  ls # random (the second factor is platform-dependent)###line 578:
    sage: print "ignore this";  ls # random (the second factor is platform-dependent)
    NameError: name 'ls' is not defined
**********************************************************************
File "/home/grout/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 600:
    sage: [ f[0] for f in ls ]
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test
        self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example
        OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example
        compileflags, 1) in test.globs
      File "<doctest __main__.example_5[8]>", line 1, in <module>
        [ f[Integer(0)] for f in ls ]###line 600:
    sage: [ f[0] for f in ls ]
    NameError: name 'ls' is not defined
**********************************************************************
File "/home/grout/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py", line 603:
    sage: [NumberField(ZZx(x[1]), 't').is_galois() for x in ls]
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test
        self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example
        OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags)
      File "/home/grout/sage/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example
        compileflags, 1) in test.globs
      File "<doctest __main__.example_5[9]>", line 1, in <module>
        [NumberField(ZZx(x[Integer(1)]), 't').is_galois() for x in ls]###line 603:
    sage: [NumberField(ZZx(x[1]), 't').is_galois() for x in ls]
    NameError: name 'ls' is not defined
**********************************************************************
2 items had failures:
   1 of   4 in __main__.example_3
   5 of  12 in __main__.example_5
***Test Failed*** 6 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /home/grout/sage/tmp/.doctest_totallyreal_rel.py
	 [4.3 s]
exit code: 1024
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following tests failed:


	sage -t  "devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py"
Total time for all tests: 4.3 seconds

jasongrout · 2009-07-19T03:45:47Z

comment:4

See the documentation patch (the second patch above) for changes to the totallyreal_rel.py file, including a comment about where a bug probably is.

jasongrout · 2009-07-19T03:45:47Z

Reviewer: Jason Grout

jasongrout · 2009-07-19T03:45:47Z

Author: Robert Bradshaw, Jason Grout

jasongrout · 2009-07-19T03:56:32Z

comment:5

I should mention that I'm not qualified to correct the code in totallyreal_rel.py, since I don't know which i is from the comprehension and which i is from the outer loop.

robertwb · 2009-07-25T10:48:18Z

comment:6

Jason, your code looks good to me. I've fixed totallyreal_rel.py--I don't totally understand the code/error either but did extensive comparison with the original code. I also fixed the remaining precision issues--the missing 0 is due to the fact that the decimal point is no longer considered a significant digit.

It'd be nice to get this into 4.1.1.

jasongrout · 2009-07-27T16:26:13Z

comment:7

Attachment: 6506-numpy-types-fixes.patch.gz

All doctests pass now. I assume your comments mean that you are giving a positive review to my changes in totallyreal_rel.py (correct me if I'm wrong!). Doctests now pass in totallyreal_rel.py and the other files mentioned above, so I'm changing this to a positive review and marking you as a reviewer too.

I agree that it would be very, very nice to get this into 4.1.1, especially considering how many times it's come up on the mailing lists just in the past week.

jasongrout · 2009-07-27T16:26:13Z

Changed reviewer from Jason Grout to Jason Grout, Robert Bradshaw

jasongrout · 2009-07-27T16:27:20Z

comment:8

When I say above that all doctests pass, I mean the doctests pointed out in my comment above. I assume that when this patch is merged, all doctests will be run and any errors will kick this ticket back to "needs work".

sagetrac-mvngu · 2009-07-29T11:51:44Z

comment:9

I applied patches in this order:

patch at Make numpy play nice with Sage types #5081
6506-numpy-types.patch
trac-6506-doc-fixes.patch
6506-numpy-types-fixes.patch
Doctesting revealed the following failures, which are mostly numerical noise:

sage -t -long devel/sage-main/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "/scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 4360:
    sage: SR(1.0000000000000000000000000).cosh()
Expected:
    cosh(1.0000000000000000000000000)
Got:
    cosh(1.000000000000000000000000)
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   1 of  12 in __main__.example_111
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/tmp/.doctest_expression.py
	 [30.5 s]

sage -t -long devel/sage-main/sage/functions/special.py
**********************************************************************
File "/scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/functions/special.py", line 655:
    sage: bessel_I(0,1,"maxima")
Expected:
    1.26606587775200...
Got:
    1.26606587775201
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   1 of   8 in __main__.example_8
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/tmp/.doctest_special.py
	 [5.7 s]

sage -t -long devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/combinat.py
**********************************************************************
File "/scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/combinat.py", line 1733:
    sage: hurwitz_zeta(11/10,1/2,50)
Expected:
    12.103813495683755105709077412966680619033648618088
Got:
    12.10381349568375510570907741296668061903364861809
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   1 of   5 in __main__.example_76
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/tmp/.doctest_combinat.py
	 [4.0 s]

sage -t -long devel/sage-main/sage/rings/rational_field.py
**********************************************************************
File "/scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/rational_field.py", line 118:
    sage: 6530219459687219.0/281474976710656
Expected:
    23.199999999999999
Got:
    23.20000000000000
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   1 of  24 in __main__.example_1
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/tmp/.doctest_rational_field.py
	 [2.9 s]

sage -t -long devel/sage-main/sage/functions/transcendental.py
**********************************************************************
File "/scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/functions/transcendental.py", line 395:
    sage: dickman_rho(10.00000000000000000000000000000000000000)
Expected:
    2.770171837725958988758121200634342326343e-11
Got:
    2.77017183772595898875812120063434232634e-11
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   1 of   6 in __main__.example_8
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/tmp/.doctest_transcendental.py
	 [3.5 s]

sage -t -long devel/sage-main/sage/rings/complex_interval.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "/scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/complex_interval.pyx", line 1052:
    sage: ComplexIntervalFieldElement(1.234567890123456789012345, 5.4321098654321987654321)
Expected:
    1.2345678901234567890123450? + 5.4321098654321987654321000?*I
Got:
    1.234567890123456789012350? + 5.432109865432198765432000?*I
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   1 of   9 in __main__.example_32
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/tmp/.doctest_complex_interval.py
	 [2.9 s]

robertwb · 2009-07-29T12:03:00Z

comment:10

I believe these are due to the correction of real number precision, not numerical noise. They all look fine to me--I'll try and post a patch later today.

robertwb · 2009-07-29T12:17:53Z

comment:11

The above issues are resolved.

sagetrac-mvngu · 2009-07-29T12:39:03Z

comment:12

With the patch at #5081 and the patches on this ticket, I still get a doctest failure:

sage -t -long devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/combinat.py
**********************************************************************
File "/scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/combinat.py", line 1733:
    sage: hurwitz_zeta(11/10,1/2,50)
Expected:
    12.103813495683755105709077412966680619033648618088
Got:
    12.10381349568375510570907741296668061903364861809
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   1 of   5 in __main__.example_76
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /scratch/mvngu/release/sage-4.1.1.alpha1/tmp/.doctest_combinat.py
	 [3.9 s]

robertwb · 2009-07-29T13:24:05Z

comment:13

Attachment: numpy-fixes-3.patch.gz

Oh, somehow I missed that one. I've refreshed the patch.

sagetrac-mvngu · 2009-07-29T13:46:57Z

comment:14

Merged all four patches.

sagetrac-mvngu · 2009-07-29T13:46:57Z

Changed reviewer from Jason Grout, Robert Bradshaw to Jason Grout, Robert Bradshaw, Minh Van Nguyen

sagetrac-mvngu · 2009-07-29T13:46:57Z

Merged: Sage 4.1.1.rc0

jdemeyer · 2015-12-22T13:04:29Z

comment:16

What's this?

            if self._prec <= 57: # max size of repr(float)

The "57" makes no sense to me. How is repr() even related?

jdemeyer · 2016-01-07T11:13:53Z

comment:17

The "57" has been fixed in #19758.

robertwb added this to the sage-4.1.1 milestone Jul 10, 2009

robertwb added c: numerical labels Jul 10, 2009

robertwb assigned sagetrac-jkantor Jul 10, 2009

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

robertwb added the s: needs review label Jul 10, 2009

jasongrout added s: needs work and removed s: needs review labels Jul 19, 2009

robertwb added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Jul 25, 2009

jasongrout added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Jul 27, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin added s: needs work and removed s: positive review labels Jul 29, 2009

robertwb removed the s: needs work label Jul 29, 2009

robertwb added the s: needs review label Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin added s: needs work and removed s: needs review labels Jul 29, 2009

robertwb added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin removed the s: needs review label Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin closed this as completed Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin added the s: positive review label Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin reopened this Jul 29, 2009

jdemeyer mentioned this issue Dec 30, 2015

Remove deprecated "property foo:" Cython syntax #19758

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

further numpy type conversions #6506

further numpy type conversions #6506

robertwb commented Jul 10, 2009

This comment has been minimized.

jasongrout commented Jul 18, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

robertwb commented Jul 25, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 27, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 27, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 27, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

robertwb commented Jul 29, 2009

robertwb commented Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

robertwb commented Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

jdemeyer commented Dec 22, 2015

jdemeyer commented Jan 7, 2016

further numpy type conversions #6506

further numpy type conversions #6506

Comments

robertwb commented Jul 10, 2009

This comment has been minimized.

jasongrout commented Jul 18, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 19, 2009

robertwb commented Jul 25, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 27, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 27, 2009

jasongrout commented Jul 27, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

robertwb commented Jul 29, 2009

robertwb commented Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

robertwb commented Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Jul 29, 2009

jdemeyer commented Dec 22, 2015

jdemeyer commented Jan 7, 2016