CC and CDF do not display numeric 0 #8720

jasongrout · 2010-04-20T02:42:33Z

Look at the inconsistency:

sage: RR(0)
0.000000000000000
sage: RDF(0)
0.0

versus

sage: CDF(0)
0
sage: CC(0)
0

Apply attachment: trac-8720-printing-complex-zero.patch, attachment: trac_8720-doctests.patch, attachment: trac_8720-doctests-2.patch
and attachment: trac_8720-doctests-3.patch.

CC: @zimmermann6 @mwhansen

Component: basic arithmetic

Author: Jason Grout, Mike Hansen, Paul Zimmermann

Reviewer: Paul Zimmermann, Karl-Dieter Crisman

Merged: sage-5.0.beta14

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/8720

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

jasongrout · 2010-04-20T03:02:18Z

Author: Jason Grout

jasongrout · 2010-04-20T03:02:18Z

comment:1

I think CDF and CC should display the same output as RDF and RR, respectively.

CCing zimmerma since he may be interested in reviewing this.

zimmermann6 · 2010-04-20T10:55:51Z

comment:2

since I was asked to review this ticket, I first notice that some doctests do not pass any more,
for example:

sage -t  gsl/dft.py
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/local/sage-4.3.5-core2/devel/sage-8720/sage/gsl/dft.py", line 528:
    sage: t = s.fft(); t
Expected:
    Indexed sequence: [5.00000000000000, 0, 0, 0, 0]
     indexed by [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
Got:
    Indexed sequence: [5.00000000000000, 0.000000000000000, 0.000000000000000, \
0.000000000000000, 0.000000000000000]
        indexed by [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]

thus some more work is needed. Please check all doctests still pass.

jasongrout · 2010-04-20T13:22:47Z

comment:3

Thanks for looking at it. When I ran the doctests, a number of them failed, so I posted to sage-devel and kept this ticket as "needs work". I will set it to "needs review" when I've taken care of the failing doctests.

Thanks again.

mwhansen · 2011-12-18T16:01:48Z

comment:4

I'm going to run the tests shortly and produce an doctest fixing patch.

mwhansen · 2011-12-18T23:29:43Z

comment:6

I've attached a patch which should fix all of the doctests in 4.8.alpha4.

zimmermann6 · 2011-12-19T11:09:42Z

comment:7

note that a consequence of that ticket is that coefficients 0 that were not displayed in Taylor
series are now displayed, for example:

sage: E = EllipticCurve('37a')
sage: L = E.lseries().dokchitser()
sage: L.taylor_series(1,4)
0.0000000000000 + 0.305999773834052*z + 0.186547797268162*z^2 - 0.136791463097188*z^3 + O(z^4)

(Before this ticket, the leading 0.000000000000000 was not printed.)

I find it good, since those 0.0 values can come from numerical cancellation.

Paul

zimmermann6 · 2011-12-19T11:53:47Z

Reviewer: Paul Zimmermann

zimmermann6 · 2011-12-19T11:53:47Z

Changed author from Jason Grout to Jason Grout, Mike Hansen

zimmermann6 · 2011-12-19T11:53:47Z

comment:8

all tests work on top of Sage 4.7.2, I give a positive review.

Paul

kcrisman · 2011-12-19T17:47:19Z

comment:9

all tests work on top of Sage 4.7.2, I give a positive review.

Just doing the radio button for this. Nice teamwork on this!

jdemeyer · 2011-12-23T16:26:37Z

comment:10

A few more doctests need to be fixed:

sage -t  -force_lib devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha6/devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx", line 7987:
    sage: M.round(6).zero_at(10^-6)
Expected:
    [             -1.528503                      0                      0]
    [  0.459974 - 0.40061*I              -1.741233                      0]
    [-0.934304 + 0.148868*I   0.54833 + 0.073202*I              -0.550725]
Got:
    [             -1.528503                    0.0                    0.0]
    [  0.459974 - 0.40061*I              -1.741233                    0.0]
    [-0.934304 + 0.148868*I   0.54833 + 0.073202*I              -0.550725]
**********************************************************************
File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha6/devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx", line 7991:
    sage: (A - M*G).zero_at(10^-12)
Expected:
    [0 0 0]
    [0 0 0]
    [0 0 0]
Got:
    [0.0 0.0 0.0]
    [0.0 0.0 0.0]
    [0.0 0.0 0.0]
**********************************************************************
File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha6/devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx", line 7995:
    sage: (G*G.conjugate().transpose()).zero_at(10^-12)
Expected:
    [1.0   0   0]
    [  0 1.0   0]
    [  0   0 1.0]
Got:
    [1.0 0.0 0.0]
    [0.0 1.0 0.0]
    [0.0 0.0 1.0]
**********************************************************************

zimmermann6 · 2011-12-23T16:40:57Z

comment:11

sorry, but there is no such doctest in 4.7.2. There must be some interaction with some
other patch which you included. My positive review was valid for 4.7.2 only.

Paul

kcrisman · 2011-12-23T16:57:48Z

comment:12

Replying to @zimmermann6:

sorry, but there is no such doctest in 4.7.2. There must be some interaction with some
other patch which you included. My positive review was valid for 4.7.2 only.

Probably Jeroen is referring to doctests in the latest alpha, on which (for better or for worse) patches need to be based on.

jdemeyer · 2012-02-07T22:30:58Z

comment:13

*** bump ***

mwhansen · 2012-02-08T01:28:48Z

comment:14

I posted a patch fixing these problems.

loefflerd · 2012-03-29T17:14:18Z

Work Issues: rebase to current beta

loefflerd · 2012-03-29T17:14:18Z

comment:22

I'm afraid that, according to the patchbot, this new patch works on latest release (4.8) but fails a doctest on 5.0.beta3, and doesn't even apply to 5.0.beta11.

mwhansen · 2012-03-29T20:20:06Z

Attachment: trac-8720-printing-complex-zero.patch.gz

mwhansen · 2012-03-29T20:20:19Z

Attachment: trac_8720-doctests.patch.gz

Attachment: trac_8720-doctests-2.patch.gz

mwhansen · 2012-03-29T20:20:41Z

comment:23

I've rebased the files on beta11.

mwhansen · 2012-03-29T20:20:41Z

Changed work issues from rebase to current beta to none

loefflerd · 2012-03-30T07:33:03Z

Work Issues: fix doctests

loefflerd · 2012-03-30T07:33:03Z

comment:24

The beta11 patchbot brings up some doctest failures:

The following tests failed:

	sage -t  -force_lib devel/sage-8720/sage/plot/hyperbolic_triangle.py # 2 doctests failed
	sage -t  -force_lib devel/sage-8720/sage/plot/hyperbolic_arc.py # 1 doctests failed
	sage -t  -force_lib devel/sage-8720/sage/matrix/matrix_space.py # 1 doctests failed
	sage -t  -force_lib devel/sage-8720/sage/matrix/constructor.py # 1 doctests failed

zimmermann6 · 2012-04-03T06:57:15Z

Attachment: trac_8720-doctests-3.patch.gz

apply this patch on top of the other three

zimmermann6 · 2012-04-03T06:59:52Z

Changed author from Jason Grout, Mike Hansen to Jason Grout, Mike Hansen, Paul Zimmermann

zimmermann6 · 2012-04-03T06:59:52Z

comment:25

I have attached a patch for sage-5.0.beta11, which makes the 4 doctests from comment [comment:24] work. Note that the change in matrix/constructor.py seems to indicate it
was not working properly before this ticket. Please review.

Paul

zimmermann6 · 2012-04-03T07:03:16Z

comment:26

changed description for the patchbot.

Paul

kcrisman · 2012-04-03T13:05:22Z

comment:27

Seems to work fine on these files. Running long doctests now but I don't anticipate any more problems.

As to constructor.py, the -0.1 was removed in the first doctest patch, so the problem was in the test, not the behavior.

kcrisman · 2012-04-03T16:13:48Z

Changed work issues from fix doctests to none

jdemeyer · 2012-04-19T06:43:48Z

Merged: sage-5.0.beta14

jasongrout added this to the sage-5.0 milestone Apr 20, 2010

jasongrout added c: basic arithmetic labels Apr 20, 2010

jasongrout assigned aghitza Apr 20, 2010

zimmermann6 added the s: needs work label Apr 20, 2010

mwhansen added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Dec 18, 2011

kcrisman added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Dec 19, 2011

jdemeyer added s: needs work and removed s: positive review labels Dec 23, 2011

mwhansen added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Feb 8, 2012

mwhansen added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Mar 28, 2012

loefflerd mannequin added s: needs work and removed s: needs review labels Mar 29, 2012

mwhansen added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Mar 29, 2012

loefflerd mannequin added s: needs work and removed s: needs review labels Mar 30, 2012

zimmermann6 added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Apr 3, 2012

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

kcrisman added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Apr 3, 2012

jdemeyer removed the s: positive review label Apr 19, 2012

jdemeyer closed this as completed Apr 19, 2012

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

CC and CDF do not display numeric 0 #8720

CC and CDF do not display numeric 0 #8720

jasongrout commented Apr 20, 2010

jasongrout commented Apr 20, 2010

jasongrout commented Apr 20, 2010

zimmermann6 commented Apr 20, 2010

jasongrout commented Apr 20, 2010

mwhansen commented Dec 18, 2011

mwhansen commented Dec 18, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 19, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 19, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 19, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 19, 2011

kcrisman commented Dec 19, 2011

jdemeyer commented Dec 23, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 23, 2011

kcrisman commented Dec 23, 2011

jdemeyer commented Feb 7, 2012

mwhansen commented Feb 8, 2012

loefflerd mannequin commented Mar 29, 2012

loefflerd mannequin commented Mar 29, 2012

mwhansen commented Mar 29, 2012

mwhansen commented Mar 29, 2012

mwhansen commented Mar 29, 2012

mwhansen commented Mar 29, 2012

loefflerd mannequin commented Mar 30, 2012

loefflerd mannequin commented Mar 30, 2012

zimmermann6 commented Apr 3, 2012

zimmermann6 commented Apr 3, 2012

zimmermann6 commented Apr 3, 2012

zimmermann6 commented Apr 3, 2012

This comment has been minimized.

kcrisman commented Apr 3, 2012

kcrisman commented Apr 3, 2012

jdemeyer commented Apr 19, 2012

CC and CDF do not display numeric 0 #8720

CC and CDF do not display numeric 0 #8720

Comments

jasongrout commented Apr 20, 2010

jasongrout commented Apr 20, 2010

jasongrout commented Apr 20, 2010

zimmermann6 commented Apr 20, 2010

jasongrout commented Apr 20, 2010

mwhansen commented Dec 18, 2011

mwhansen commented Dec 18, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 19, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 19, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 19, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 19, 2011

kcrisman commented Dec 19, 2011

jdemeyer commented Dec 23, 2011

zimmermann6 commented Dec 23, 2011

kcrisman commented Dec 23, 2011

jdemeyer commented Feb 7, 2012

mwhansen commented Feb 8, 2012

loefflerd mannequin commented Mar 29, 2012

loefflerd mannequin commented Mar 29, 2012

mwhansen commented Mar 29, 2012

mwhansen commented Mar 29, 2012

mwhansen commented Mar 29, 2012

mwhansen commented Mar 29, 2012

loefflerd mannequin commented Mar 30, 2012

loefflerd mannequin commented Mar 30, 2012

zimmermann6 commented Apr 3, 2012

zimmermann6 commented Apr 3, 2012

zimmermann6 commented Apr 3, 2012

zimmermann6 commented Apr 3, 2012

This comment has been minimized.

kcrisman commented Apr 3, 2012

kcrisman commented Apr 3, 2012

jdemeyer commented Apr 19, 2012