#9172 closed defect (worksforme)
cygwin: numerical noise in sage/rings/integer.pyx
Reported by: | was | Owned by: | tbd |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
Component: | porting: Cygwin | Keywords: | |
Cc: | jpflori | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | Jean-Pierre Flori | |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
sage -t "devel/sage/sage/rings/integer.pyx" ********************************************************************** File "/home/wstein/sage-4.4.3/devel/sage/sage/rings/integer.pyx", line 1681: sage: 2^float(1.5) # python float Expected: 2.8284271247461903 Got: 2.8284271247461898 ********************************************************************** 1 items had failures: 1 of 26 in __main__.example_42 ***Test Failed*** 1 failures. For whitespace errors, see the file /home/wstein/.sage//tmp/.doctest_integer.py [15.2 s]
Change History (13)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
This file passed doctests on a build of mine on XP.
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
But when doing the test by hand, the same thing happens.
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc jpflori added
- Priority changed from major to minor
This now fails with
2.82842712474619
which I suppose is an improvement. Maybe we can use abs tol
?
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 9 years ago by
And the test passes for me (64bits W7 + 5.6.rc0).
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 9 years ago by
And the test passes for me (64bits W7 + 5.6.rc0).
In which case it might just be a 32-bit versus 64-bit issue. Did you try it by hand as well?
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
Replying to kcrisman:
And the test passes for me (64bits W7 + 5.6.rc0).
In which case it might just be a 32-bit versus 64-bit issue. Did you try it by hand as well?
works for me, both ways. I think we can close this one.
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
Hmm, I'm reluctant to not just change this a bit for 32-bit...
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by
Yeah, I think we should make sure this passes on 32 bits. I'll double check when I have the time to build on such a computer.
comment:10 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:11 Changed 9 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.7 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
I have no problems on my 32 bits Windows 7 install, so Cygwin must have gotten better. I really doubt Cygwin on XP would have a different behavior for this one, so let's close it.
comment:12 Changed 9 years ago by
- Resolution set to worksforme
- Reviewers set to Jean-Pierre Flori
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:13 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
The correct answer is 2*sqrt(2), which is
2.8284271247461900976033774484193961...
So the expected value is
2.0239x10
^{-16} high, and result on Cygwin is 2.9760x10^{-16} low. So the errors on Linux/OSX/Solaris is not much lower than on Cygwin. We can't really expect any more from a floating point number.We could change the Expected value to
2.8284271247461...
What I don't like about that, is then much larger errors can exist and them not be detected. But this is far from the only such case, so I suggest just changing the test to2.8284271247461...
, which will solve this.Dave