-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 587
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
Fix numeric evaluation of error function #11948
Comments
Author: Jeroen Demeyer |
comment:6
Thanks for that info; I didn't realize it was the new Pari that made this possible. I'd say that if someone reviews this, it should go in. #1173 is probably not going to get finished immediately, and we can always switch to mpmath if necessary or convenient or speedy at that time. |
Attachment: 11948.patch.gz |
Apply after main patch |
comment:9
Attachment: trac_11948-reviewer.patch.gz Looks good. I've added a tiny bit of doc, because Positive review, unless the author finds something he doesn't like about the review patch. |
Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman |
comment:10
Replying to @kcrisman:
Probably changing TABS to spaces. |
Merged: sage-4.8.alpha6 |
comment:14
Unfortunately, this causes a nasty problem. This example in the documentation is fine - comparing mpmath:
But anything along the imaginary axis seems to be off by exactly 1:
But other values seem ok.
|
comment:15
More precisely:
|
comment:16
Now, in 5.1.beta6's gp I get
so I see that this is still in "our" version of Pari. Is this fixed upstream? Is it possible that this is not actually a bug in Pari, but in our use of it? Wolfram Alpha gives the mpmath answer, for what it's worth. |
comment:17
I should also point out that we even doctest that it is wrong - due to my reviewer patch on this ticket :( so this is certainly a mea culpa among others. |
comment:18
And apparently even weirder, courtesy of Jeff Denny.
I'm opening a ticket for this, even if it gets fixed by one of the logical others (#1173 or #13050) because it is just mathematically wrong. This is #13193; continue discussion there. |
Because the argument is converted to
float
first, the error functionerf()
cannot numerically be evaluated for complex arguments:Depends on #11130
Depends on #11321
Depends on #11854
Depends on #11891
Depends on #11890
Depends on #11836
Depends on #11952
Component: numerical
Keywords: erf erfc
Author: Jeroen Demeyer
Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman
Merged: sage-4.8.alpha6
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/11948
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: