Opened 10 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#11796 closed defect (fixed)
inconsistency between 0.nbits() and 0.ndigits(base=2)
Reported by: | marion | Owned by: | AlexGhitza |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-4.8 |
Component: | basic arithmetic | Keywords: | ecc2011 |
Cc: | Merged in: | sage-4.8.alpha3 | |
Authors: | Paul Zimmermann | Reviewers: | André Apitzsch |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
There is an inconsistency between functions nbits()
, bits()
and digits(base=2)
when applied to zero:
sage: 0.nbits() 1 sage: 0.ndigits(base=2) 0 sage: 0.bits() [] sage: 0.digits(base=2) []
Attachments (1)
Change History (12)
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
I checked the long doctests on my machine with version 4.7.1 of sage and the following tests failed:
sage -t -long devel/sage-test/sage/databases/database.py # 15 doctests failed sage -t -long devel/sage-test/sage/graphs/graph.py # 6 doctests failed sage -t -long devel/sage-test/sage/graphs/graph_list.py # 4 doctests failed sage -t -long devel/sage-test/sage/graphs/graph_database.py # 28 doctests failed sage -t -long devel/sage-test/sage/graphs/generic_graph.py # 4 doctests failed
Marion
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_info
Marion,
this is strange, since on my laptop (Core 2 Duo) with Sage 4.7.1 those 5 long doctests pass.
Please can you try again those 5 doctests? Just run for example
sage -t -long databases/database.py
in the right directory.
Did they pass without the patch?
Paul
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
Ok, on my Sage without the patch all these 5 doctests failed too (I did not check the tests on the version I downloaded first...) I will investigate further where the problem comes from.
Marion
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by
- Keywords ecc2011 added
Marion, you can also try on a computer where all doctests pass before the patch, and open a separate ticket for the problem on your computer.
Paul
comment:6 follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 9 years ago by
The problem was already mentioned in #10596.
But there ndigits()
was changed to return 1 instead of 0.
So, whose solution is correct and why?
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to aapitzsch:
The problem was already mentioned in #10596. But there
ndigits()
was changed to return 1 instead of 0.So, whose solution is correct and why?
I cannot apply the patches from #10596 to Sage 4.7:
sage: hg_sage.import_patch("/tmp/trac_10596.patch") cd "/usr/local/sage/devel/sage" && hg status cd "/usr/local/sage/devel/sage" && hg status cd "/usr/local/sage/devel/sage" && hg import "/tmp/trac_10596.patch" applying /tmp/trac_10596.patch patching file sage/rings/integer.pyx Hunk #4 succeeded at 566 with fuzz 2 (offset -34 lines). Hunk #69 FAILED at 5248 1 out of 80 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/rings/integer.pyx.rej
What is inconsistent is that we should have 0.nbits() == len(0.bits()) == 0.ndigits(base=2) == len(0.digits(base=2))
, which currently does not hold.
Now if 0.nbits()
is 1, then 0.bits()
should be [0]
.
I would prefer to return 0 and [] respectively, but first solve the inconsistency.
Paul
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
The patches from #10596 are based on Sage 4.8.alpha2.
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers set to André Apitzsch
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
sage/databases/database.py
was removed by #11642. All other tests pass.
comment:10 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:11 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.8.alpha3
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
I checked all doctests with Sage 4.7.1 and they all still pass. Strangely the value of nbits for 0 was never tested nor apparently used.
Paul