Opened 9 years ago
Closed 2 years ago
#12123 closed defect (invalid)
Bug in convolution in old Piecewise
Reported by: | kcrisman | Owned by: | burcin |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
Component: | calculus | Keywords: | piecewise |
Cc: | wdj, kcrisman, jondo, vbraun, slelievre, mkoeppe, eviatarbach, rws | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | Travis Scrimshaw | |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: | todo |
Description (last modified by )
The old Piecewise (pre #14801; now deprecated) has this bug:
sage: x = PolynomialRing(QQ,'x').gen() sage: f = Piecewise([[(-2, 2), 2 * x^0]]) sage: g = Piecewise([[(0, 2), 3/4 * x^0]]) sage: n = f.convolution(g) sage: n Piecewise defined function with 3 parts, [[(-2, 0), 3/2*x + 3], [(0, 2), 6], [(2, 4), -3/2*x + 6]]
But the middle piece should be 3, not 6, apparently.
See the original report at this ask.sagemath.org question.
Note this is fixed in the new piecewise
(lowercase p, from #14801).
sage: x = PolynomialRing(QQ,'x').gen() sage: f = piecewise([[(-2, 2), 2 * x^0]]) sage: g = piecewise([[(0, 2), 3/4 * x^0]]) sage: n = f.convolution(g) sage: n piecewise(x|-->3/2*x + 3 on (-2, 0], x|-->3 on (0, 2], x|-->-3/2*x + 6 on (2, 4]; x)
Can close this bug when the old Piecewise
is removed completely.
Change History (15)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.11 to sage-5.12
comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.1 to sage-6.2
comment:4 follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 7 years ago by
Here's another report that is almost certainly the same thing.
x = PolynomialRing(QQ, 'x').gen() f1 = Piecewise([[(-1, 1), 1*x^0]]) f2 = Piecewise([[(0, 1), x], [(1, 2), -x + 2]]) g = f2.convolution(f1) Piecewise defined function with 4 parts, [[(-1, 0), 1/2*x^2 + x +1/2], [(0, 1), -1/2*x^2 + 3*x], [(1, 2), -1/2*x^2 - x + 4], [(2, 3), 1/2*x^2 - 3*x + 9/2]].
but probably should be (according to the report)
Piecewise defined function with 3 parts, [[(-1, 0), 0.5*x^2 + x + 0.5], [(0, 2), -0.5*x^2 + x + 0.5], [(2, 3), 0.5*x^2 - 3*x + 4.5]
comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by
In fact,
if a1-b1<a2-b2: if a2+b1!=a1+b2:
doesn't even make sense; if the former is true, so is the latter? What on earth is going on here? I think an extra branch snuck in, in addition to the typo.
comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by
See also #14801, though I don't know that will help with this.
comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.2 to sage-6.3
comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.3 to sage-6.4
comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by
See #17793 (possible dup)
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to kcrisman:
Here's another report that is almost certainly the same thing.
The two curve parts before addition look like this A working implementation should make sure that, when they are added, only three intervals remain.
sage: f = Piecewise([[(0, 1), -1/2*x^2 + x],[(1, 2), 1/2],[(2, 3), 1/2*x^2 - 3*x + 9/2]]) sage: g = Piecewise([[(-1, 0), 1/2*x^2 + x + 1/2],[(0, 1), 1/2],[(1, 2), -1/2*x^2 + x]]) sage: f+g Piecewise defined function with 4 parts, [[(-1, 0), 1/2*x^2 + x + 1/2], [(0, 1), -1/2*x^2 + x + 1/2], [(1, 2), -1/2*x^2 + x + 1/2], [(2, 3), 1/2*x^2 - 3*x + 9/2]]
comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by
- Stopgaps set to todo
comment:12 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc kcrisman jondo vbraun slelievre mkoeppe eviatarbach rws added
- Description modified (diff)
- Keywords piecewise added
- Milestone changed from sage-6.4 to sage-7.3
- Priority changed from major to minor
- Summary changed from Bug in convolution to Bug in convolution in old Piecewise
Description modified to comment that this seems fixed in the new piecewise
(#14801).
comment:13 Changed 2 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-7.3 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Status changed from new to needs_review
piecewise_old will be removed in #26865
comment:14 Changed 2 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Travis Scrimshaw
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:15 Changed 2 years ago by
- Resolution set to invalid
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Presuming these are all correctly reviewed as either duplicate, invalid, or wontfix.
The fix is to fix the following
to have
f2
instead off4
. There is a parallel part as well in the other branch of the if, wherefg2
should befg4
, it appears.This should be fixed quickly, but should also be checked to make sure it really does do the right thing! The code is not really commented enough to show what is going on with all these different mini-convolutions, one has to really think about it.