-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 568
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
update/upgrade maxima to latest upstream (5.21.1) #8731
Comments
comment:1
Just a comment:
is not in the style of the other items in the changelog, where it would be April 20th, 2009. Actually, it would be April 20th, 2010, but who's counting? |
comment:2
Replying to @kcrisman:
There are no less than three different styles in the other dates in the changelog, so apparently it's okay to have inconsistent date styles, so I did the dates in a much more standard notation. However, I'll change it to spell out April since the date is wrong anyway. |
comment:3
Here are the doctests that are broken for me with this spkg:
|
comment:4
I've uploaded a new spkg with the changelog date now the correct date (and formatted as 20 April 2010) |
comment:5
For the doctests that return binomial(n,n) instead of 1, we just have to put an assumption in: assume(n>0) |
comment:7
I had the following problem while trying to install this on Sage 4.4:
Nonetheless, I get Maxima 5.21.0 in the console, and the various binomial(n,n) errors you mention, so maybe something went right? |
comment:8
(1) Now the latest maxima is 5.21.1 (2) This should be done in conjunction with upgrading ECL. See #8808. The maxima in sage-4.4 doesn't build with ecl-10.4.1, but Maxima 5.21.1 does build fine on top of ECL-10.4.1. A new spkg is here (but, again, first install the ECL spkg from #8808 when testing this):
|
comment:10
Question: Does this still incorporate the fixes mentioned in the Description? I assume it still needs doctest fixes due to improvements. |
comment:11
I still get
though I no longer get the unknown keyword error. maxima_console() does give me 5.21.1. Testing now. |
comment:12
With 5.21.1 Maxima and 10.4.1 ECL, the new failure list is:
See http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/build/san_diego/sage-4.4/8731.out for the complete doctest run. |
comment:13
Replying to @williamstein:
Oops, seems that solving inequalities is completely broken with this new version of Maxima. |
comment:14
Yes, though I wouldn't say completely broken, since not every doctest fails, correct? Other issues: In symbolic/integration/integral.py, there is one integral which has been improved, and one which seems to affected by the rational approximation thing, but wasn't before. There is also an integral (in that file, I think) which Maxima can now do, and we need to replace it with one Maxima can't do. There is also a slight change in the numeric value because of this, but that wasn't the point of that doctest. The binomial issue seems easy to fix, but apparently now binomial(n,n)=1 for all n in Sage, but not in Maxima. Should we change Sage, or do what Jason recommends (assume n>0 or something)? And in interfaces/maxima.py there are a lot of erros where Maxima loads like
as well as of course the Maxima version being wrong and, oddly, the following:
which is not good at all if real, but maybe just means Maxima changed something minor? The plot3d one is not too significant, I think. I haven't looked at the other ones. Anyway, obviously 'needs work' until someone posts a fairly comprehensive patch. |
comment:15
Also, the spkg-install for the most recent spkg does not include the fix from #8645, as opposed to the one Jason posted. That is crucial to close this ticket. |
comment:17
Reported the problem with solve_rat_ineq in Maxima forum, (problem probably in algsys and realonly) |
comment:18
Replying to @robert-marik:
.... and it is already fixed in the CVS version (one-line fix) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:19
A new spkg is up at: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jason/maxima-5.21.1.spkg This spkg includes the upstream bugfix for the solve_rat_ineq issue noted above. |
comment:20
My 5.21.1 spkg also includes the fixes noted in the description. |
comment:24
Replying to @kcrisman:
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if those extra lines actually came from the updated ECL package, given what the messages are. |
comment:25
Hmm, maybe ECL does something not silently it did silently before? I forgot I had to install that spkg, by the way - to all others, remember to use #8808 first! |
comment:26
With the new ECL and the new Maxima, I no longer get the error messages about installing a .fas or .fasb file. That is good. Anyway, doctest should just be changed for the loading thing, regardless of where it does it. All documentation requests do that, as does running maxima_console(). Unless... before, maxima_console() gave three loading statements, the last two of which are the ones which show up in your examples. Now there are five, but the top two are new... are we stripping away three load statements in the output, but not more? Just a wild idea. As for the last error, here it is in the maxima_console() - something's not going right.
Yet in the previous one we get
which sure looks the same to me, yet Sage catches it correctly before and not now! What the heck? |
comment:27
Before, there was a lowercase "i", now it is upper-case in "Incorrect". Maybe that's the problem. |
comment:28
Oh yes, I should have seen that. A quick search_src doesn't reveal anything useful, though. |
comment:29
Regarding the other errors: Replying to @jasongrout:
This is true if the cosine integral ci(x) (Ci in Mma) is 1/2*(Ei(Ix)+Ei(-Ix). Several online references imply it, and also noting that cos(x) is 1/2*(exp(ix)+exp(-ix)) (by Taylor series or whatever you like) suffices.
I'm not sure what to do with this. keepfloat is so annoying.
I believe this is all related to a change made in how sqrt behaves with respect to factors (sqrt(ab) and sqrt(a), sqrt(b)) and whether an I gets factored out or not. They all come down to the same essential things:
The latter seems ok immediately (or at least no worse than other decision made for us about which root of -1 to choose), but even given that $x2+y2+z^2=1$, which is asserted earlier in the file, I can't quite make out the former. I'll look into this a little more. |
comment:31
Burcin has also already pointed this out at #8624. |
comment:32
I get the following on Mac OSX 10.6 on Intel (see the patch for the which test):
|
comment:33
That h.n() doctest is interesting. (From what I recall when I investigated it) the old maxima agreed with both mathematica and mpmath, but the new maxima is off in the last few digits---it might be worth checking into, though it may just be numerical error. |
comment:34
(but those h.n() errors I talked about were for the old sin function, not the new tan function, IIRC) |
comment:35
Replying to @williamstein: It may be useful to note that all the doctests that fail with maxima.5.21.1 and ecl.10.4.1, pass with maxima.5.20.1.p1 from #8645. So, ecl.10.4.1 is not of influence. All changes in doctest responses are due to changes in maxima. |
comment:36
It's actually possible to turn messages like this off. If you're driving maxima via a pexpect interface, that might be the proper thing to do. The key is the "Common Lisp HyperSpec", the de facto official CL documentation. Looking at http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/v_ld_prs.htm#STload-verboseST It's on by default in ECL, but can be turned off:
|
comment:37
Note to eventual author of patch - please confirm here that #8729 is fixed when writing doctests. |
comment:38
With 4.5.alpha4 + http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jason/maxima-5.21.1.spkg + attachment: trac-8731-maxima-upgrade.patch, the long tests on sage.math give reproducible failures in
The full raw test log is here. |
comment:39
Just FYI:
So maybe we should change this ticket to 5.22.0 if they don't get too many problems with it? |
comment:40
And now the latest is 5.22.1. |
comment:41
This will probably also fix #8582. |
comment:42
Just FYI on this ticket - from an email on the Maxima list by Robert Dodier:
|
comment:43
As sooner or later maxima would have to be updated to 5.22 or newer I decided to share my experiences of first approach to update to it. I wanted to try 5.22 because it's first version that supports inversion of error function, and first to support integrals of form abs(x) from 0 to a without assumptions. I based on patch by Jason for 5.21 and wanted to reach at least same level of failures as with 5.21. Unfortunately, I got stuck at one place - maxima hangs in some situations. I tracked that to this difference: before it was
and now it is
which makes Sage wait for "" forever. I made spkg: http://lab15.im.pwr.wroc.pl/~giniew/maxima-5.22.1.spkg and patch - http://lab15.im.pwr.wroc.pl/~giniew/trac-8731-maxima-upgrade-to-5.22.1.patch - those are not working but I'm attaching them in case someone wants to pick up from here - as I said I gave up for now. (btw, the doctest that was failing in devel/sage/sage/calculus/calculus.py is just different grouping, checked it and added new version to doctest, and there is one new doctest failure in devel/sage/sage/calculus/calculus.py that fails because maxima can integrate abs(x) in x from 0 to any a and returns correct 1/2aabs(a). There was also change to how logcontract works, they don't make full rational simplification now. I added one more step of rational simplification to simplify_full to simplify it more, though it might change some results.) |
comment:44
See #10187 for up-to-date ecl/maxima spkgs and a workaround to the |
comment:45
Close as a duplicate of #10187. The latter ticket upgrades Maxima to version 5.22.1. |
This update fixes #8729. It also includes the fixes noted in #8645 (so this spkg supersedes the maxima spkg at #8645).
The spkg is up at http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jason/maxima-5.21.1.spkg
A patch needs to be applied to fix some doctests. In particular, apparently maxima has gotten better at integration.
CC: @kcrisman @robert-marik @mwhansen
Component: packages: standard
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/8731
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: