Opened 3 years ago

Closed 21 months ago

#16773 closed enhancement (fixed)

Analytic Rank Bound

Reported by: spice Owned by: spice
Priority: major Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: elliptic curves Keywords: elliptic curves, analytic rank, l-functions
Cc: Merged in:
Authors: Simon Spicer Reviewers: William Stein
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: 7056dd9 (Commits) Commit: 7056dd9e8dacf3602edc1134b12368017999dd38
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by was)

Implement functionality to bound from above the analytic rank of a rational elliptic curve. This uses the zero sum method as described in http://msp.org/obs/2013/1-1/obs-v1-n1-p07-s.pdf. Because this avoids computing with the curve's L-function directly, it is often faster than traditional analytic rank techniques.

The enhancement also includes functionality to compute more general zero sums for an elliptic curve L-function, as well as computing with the logarithmic derivative. The elliptic_curves object in Sage has also been modified to contain examples of elliptic curves up to rank 28. To this end the elliptic_curves spkg has been updated to version 0.8. The zipped data file for the spkg can be obtained at http://www.math.washington.edu/~mlungu/files/elliptic_curves-0.8.tar.bz2

Complete working sage install with docs built: https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/8499bab7-d4a5-4956-acd2-248b5550731d/files/sage/

Built HTML documentation files (as public, this will work later this week, but not now...)

https://cloud.sagemath.com/8499bab7-d4a5-4956-acd2-248b5550731d/raw/sage/src/doc/output/html/en/reference/lfunctions/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.html#sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum https://cloud.sagemath.com/8499bab7-d4a5-4956-acd2-248b5550731d/raw/sage/src/doc/output/html/en/reference/plane_curves/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.html#sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.ell_rational_field.EllipticCurve_rational_field.analytic_rank_upper_bound

Change History (62)

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by spice

  • Authors set to spice
  • Component changed from PLEASE CHANGE to elliptic curves
  • Description modified (diff)
  • Keywords elliptic curves analytic rank l-functions added
  • Owner changed from (none) to spice
  • Type changed from PLEASE CHANGE to enhancement

comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by spice

  • Authors changed from spice to Simon Spicer

comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by spice

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by spice

  • Branch set to u/spice/analytic_rank_bound

comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by vbraun_spam

  • Milestone changed from sage-6.3 to sage-6.4

comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit set to b36d9400d560e5383f88594d136db026e70dd5e5

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

5e7b350Merge tag '6.3.rc0' of git://github.com/sagemath/sage into gsoc
0882426Fixed docstring typos
f033351Merge branch 'gsoc' of https://github.com/haikona/GSoC_2014 into gsoc
33f7b70Added parallel functionality for sincsquared zero sum
b72ac10Cleaning up parallized zero sum code
6fcb73fReplaced PARI primality testing with FLINT primality testing
9fe00d3Generalized _get_residue_data() to arbitrarily large n
8585e69Minor documentation typo fixes
b36d940Merge branch 'gsoc' of https://github.com/haikona/GSoC_2014 into t/16773/analytic_rank_bound

comment:7 Changed 3 years ago by was

I'll be reviewing this. I just read over all of the code and it's in really good shape right now. There are a couple of minor issues that I told Simon about, which he'll address soon.

I have not compiled or run doctests yet.

comment:8 Changed 3 years ago by was

  • Reviewers set to William Stein

comment:9 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from b36d9400d560e5383f88594d136db026e70dd5e5 to b12b9dcc76db16fc90d30fed3f7330823bc1455d

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

b12b9dcMore documentation, typos, and lseries() interface method

comment:10 Changed 3 years ago by spice

  • Status changed from new to needs_review

comment:11 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from b12b9dcc76db16fc90d30fed3f7330823bc1455d to 7b4f9d849cf14e709e90880dbdbd5b51b3524b62

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

fa4b027Fixed some documentation errors
f149c97Cleaning up documentations
5f1f8e4Preliminary reference manual docs
ae933a4Merge branch 'gsoc' of https://github.com/haikona/GSoC_2014 into gsoc
f4326a5Removed proto-tutorial docs
7b4f9d8Modified elliptic_curves spkg, major docstring tweaking

comment:12 Changed 2 years ago by spice

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:13 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 7b4f9d849cf14e709e90880dbdbd5b51b3524b62 to c7797e5d5c44e467ddebd5586bd48c4b093633f6

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

5fe05c6More rEST docstring fixes
c7797e5More reST docfixes

comment:14 Changed 2 years ago by spice

  • Description modified (diff)

The elliptic_curves spkg has been updated, and version number incremented to 0.8. The zipped data file for the spkg can be obtained at http://www.math.washington.edu/~mlungu/files/elliptic_curves-0.8.tar.bz2

comment:15 Changed 2 years ago by was

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:16 Changed 2 years ago by spice

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:17 Changed 2 years ago by was

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:18 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from c7797e5d5c44e467ddebd5586bd48c4b093633f6 to 663de2318d939f92c47d9cddfd782007fedd17a0

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

663de23Sundry fixes, including removing Numpy import on startup

comment:19 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 663de2318d939f92c47d9cddfd782007fedd17a0 to 7d937abb1ec01f1b7f80fe190eab64b18d2803ad

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

7d937abOne more reST docfix

comment:20 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 7d937abb1ec01f1b7f80fe190eab64b18d2803ad to ee2f1d954c30f3cc91699281e048a8863aeb7605

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

edb8b21Another small reST docfix
ee2f1d9reST docfixes continue...

comment:21 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from ee2f1d954c30f3cc91699281e048a8863aeb7605 to c5f7ec9fe7ea604990b7e574fbecf50ac8e2afc6

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

c5f7ec9Docstring indentation fix

comment:22 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from c5f7ec9fe7ea604990b7e574fbecf50ac8e2afc6 to 4a5f092b8da850e22938e88f1c3b63c754295ba2

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

4a5f092Citation fix

comment:23 Changed 2 years ago by chapoton

By curiosity, on which version of sage are you working ? The branch field here above is red, and should rather be green if your commits are to be applied (see any other recent ticket, for example #17255). It is probably better to work on top of the latest development version (now 6.4.rc0).

comment:24 Changed 2 years ago by spice

I'm working off 6.3. Time to rebase then!

comment:25 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 4a5f092b8da850e22938e88f1c3b63c754295ba2 to 07269ec17a7d156b5733b0cb7624bcf049aac950

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

6fadd0dMerge to update to Sage 6.4.rc0
07269ecMerge branch 'develop' into gsoc

comment:26 Changed 2 years ago by spice

Patch has been updated to Sage 6.4.rc1

comment:27 Changed 2 years ago by spice

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

Updating to 6.4.rc1 introduces some minor doctest errors, which I'll need to fix.

comment:28 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 07269ec17a7d156b5733b0cb7624bcf049aac950 to 391fa5231aabc117ed95e134ee2089ee290f232d

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

391fa52Fix tests broken by upgrade to Sage 6.4.rc1

comment:29 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 391fa5231aabc117ed95e134ee2089ee290f232d to d6871dac899a30e7ca84c9df91b171eea1a63cf5

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

d6871daMerge branch 'master' into gsoc

comment:30 Changed 2 years ago by spice

  • Milestone changed from sage-6.4 to sage-6.5
  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

Branch rebased to 6.4.1. All tests pass, so I'm changing the patch to NEEDS_REVIEW.

comment:31 Changed 2 years ago by was

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

comment:32 Changed 2 years ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
sage -t --long --warn-long 38.9 src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 1333, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_EllipticCurve.?
Failed example:
    print(E.rank(),Z._zerosum_sincsquared_parallel(Delta=1.5,ncpus=8))
Expected:
    (0, 0.01047120600865063)
Got:
    (0, 0.010471206008650615)
**********************************************************************

comment:33 follow-up: Changed 2 years ago by vbraun

Also, do you really need 8 cores to test this? Is the code path different from 2 cores?

comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 33 Changed 2 years ago by spice

Replying to vbraun:

Also, do you really need 8 cores to test this? Is the code path different from 2 cores?

No, the code path is the same either way. I'll change the test to use only 2 cores, and add tolerances (should have done this anyway since the code is doing arithmetic over RDF).

Should I add tolerances to my other numerical tests? Or is this only an issue because I'm using @parallel in this one method?

comment:35 Changed 2 years ago by vbraun

You need tolerances wherever the output might have numerical noise. Some floating-point operations are guaranteed by IEEE, but e.g. @parallel will add in random order and floating-point addition is not associative.

comment:36 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from d6871dac899a30e7ca84c9df91b171eea1a63cf5 to 4d5bbec0ebddce3b202d2ab9ff84463ecfdea094

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

4d5bbecFixed a numerical precision error in a doctest

comment:37 Changed 2 years ago by spice

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

Numerical error in the @parallel method doctest has been fixed, including reducing the number of cores to 2. Patch should be good to go.

comment:38 Changed 2 years ago by vbraun

Why the extra print?

sage: print(Z._zerosum_sincsquared_parallel(Delta=1.5,ncpus=2))
sage: Z._zerosum_sincsquared_parallel(Delta=1.5,ncpus=2)

comment:39 Changed 2 years ago by spice

I split up the output: the numerical value should be an upper bound to the rank of an elliptic curve. The former is a floating point value, however, so there should be an allowed tolerance in the output. I thought that writing the example this way makes the comparison a bit clearer.

comment:40 Changed 2 years ago by was

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

rubber stamp.

comment:41 Changed 2 years ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

32-bit Linux:

sage -t --long src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 198, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.digamma
Failed example:
    Z.digamma(3.2)
Expected:
    0.9988388912865993
Got:
    0.9988388912865995
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 200, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.digamma
Failed example:
    Z.digamma(3.2,include_constant_term=False)
Expected:
    1.576054556188132
Got:
    1.5760545561881325
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 202, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.digamma
Failed example:
    Z.digamma(1+I)
Expected:
    0.09465032062247625 + 1.076674047468581*I
Got:
    0.09465032062247693 + 1.076674047468581*I
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 289, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.logarithmic_derivative
Failed example:
    Z.logarithmic_derivative(2.2,num_terms=50000) # long time
Expected:
    (0.5751579645060139, 0.008988775519160675)
Got:
    (0.5751579645060141, 0.008988775519160675)
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 305, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.logarithmic_derivative
Failed example:
    Z.logarithmic_derivative(complex(3,-1))
Expected:
    (0.04764548578052381 + 0.16513832809989326*I, 6.584671359095225e-06)
Got:
    (0.0476454857805238 + 0.16513832809989318*I, 6.584671359095225e-06)
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 502, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.zerosum
Failed example:
    Z.zerosum(Delta=1,tau=2.876,function="sincsquared")
Expected:
    1.075551295651154
Got:
    1.0755512956511541
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 504, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.zerosum
Failed example:
    Z.zerosum(Delta=1,tau=1.2,function="sincsquared")
Expected:
    0.10831555377490683
Got:
    0.10831555377490693
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 808, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract._zerosum_cauchy
Failed example:
    Z._zerosum_cauchy(Delta=1,tau=6.36261389)
Expected:
    2.180904626331156
Got:
    2.1809046263311567
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 815, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract._zerosum_cauchy
Failed example:
    Z._zerosum_cauchy(Delta=1,tau=1.5)
Expected:
    0.9827072037553375
Got:
    0.9827072037553374
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 824, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract._zerosum_cauchy
Failed example:
    Z._zerosum_cauchy(Delta=1.5)
Expected:
    12.93835258975716
Got:
    12.938352589757159
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 1180, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_EllipticCurve._zerosum_sincsquared_fast
Failed example:
    print(E.rank(),Z._zerosum_sincsquared_fast(Delta=1.5))
Expected:
    (0, 0.0104712060086507)
Got:
    (0, 0.010471206008650728)
**********************************************************************
5 items had failures:
   1 of   7 in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_EllipticCurve._zerosum_sincsquared_fast
   3 of  10 in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract._zerosum_cauchy
   3 of   8 in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.digamma
   2 of  10 in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.logarithmic_derivative
   2 of  10 in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.zerosum
    [127 tests, 11 failures, 146.27 s]

comment:42 Changed 2 years ago by vbraun

This happens randomly, too:

sage -t --long src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py", line 1665, in sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.ell_rational_field.EllipticCurve_rational_field.?
Failed example:
    Z.analytic_rank_upper_bound(max_Delta=2.8,adaptive=False, # long time
    root_number="ignore",bad_primes=bad_primes)               # long time
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/scratch/buildbot/sage/redhawk-1/sage_git/build/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 488, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/scratch/buildbot/sage/redhawk-1/sage_git/build/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 850, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.ell_rational_field.EllipticCurve_rational_field.?[26]>", line 2, in <module>
        root_number="ignore",bad_primes=bad_primes)               # long time
      File "sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 1728, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_EllipticCurve.analytic_rank_upper_bound (build/cythonized/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.c:13597)
        return run_computation(max_Delta)
      File "sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 1673, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_EllipticCurve.analytic_rank_upper_bound.run_computation (build/cythonized/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.c:12682)
        bound = self._zerosum_sincsquared_parallel(Delta=Delta,
      File "sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 1453, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_EllipticCurve._zerosum_sincsquared_parallel (build/cythonized/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.c:12269)
        y += summand[1]
    TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +=: 'float' and 'NoneType'
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  94 in sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.ell_rational_field.EllipticCurve_rational_field.?
    [815 tests, 1 failure, 216.40 s]

comment:43 Changed 2 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 4d5bbec0ebddce3b202d2ab9ff84463ecfdea094 to bbe851c24ed0cf48d1d746bcee4258e7394048ca

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

bbe851cFix architecture error on numerical doctests

comment:44 Changed 2 years ago by spice

I adding tolerances to each of the numerical doctests; this should help with the numerical errors that appear when the tests are run on different architecture.

As for that one random error in ell_rational_field.py, I've tracked it to @parallel code being executed when ncpus is large (>8). Given that it seems to run fine on some systems but not others, my guess is that it's probably an issue somewhere in the @parallel framework as opposed to the new code in this patch.

Nevertheless, I've reworked the doctest in any case -- a test using that many CPUs is excessive, and it was still taking longer than the suggested ~5 seconds. It now uses smaller parameters and only calls for 2 processors. This should hopefully make it run without issue on any system.

All doctests pass on SMC architecture. I'll also run the full test suite on a different system just to be sure.

comment:45 Changed 2 years ago by vbraun

  • Can you move _sum_over_residues out of the function body and document it
  • _sum_over_residues can clearly return None if it falls through the last loop, which is the random error that we get. Can you start with an assert False (good practice anyways) at the end of it and then try it out with small residue chunks.
  • addition is not associative, so parallel reductions always suffer from numerical errors. but 10^-10 =~ 10^6 ulp is ridiculously large.
  • doctests are typically run in parallel with one per (virtual) cpu, using @parallel is just slowing it down. Perhaps ncpus should generally return 1 or 2 in DOCTEST_MODE
  • PEP8 whitespace style would be nice, e.g. space after comma f(a, b, foo=bar).

comment:46 Changed 2 years ago by spice

Hi Volker

Sure, I can enact these changes. Will edit the code appropriately and resubmit in due course.

  • Simon

comment:47 Changed 22 months ago by spice

  • Milestone changed from sage-6.5 to sage-6.8

comment:48 Changed 22 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from bbe851c24ed0cf48d1d746bcee4258e7394048ca to 5455c8da1c124656fd388800a416e3ebc0d2ba8a

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

835572cReduced tolerences, moved _get_residue_data() method outside class method
4a4106aMerge branch 'master' into gsoc
3a36c94Cleaned up new code in zero_sums.pyx, added _ncpus variable to class
1c59ef8Merge branch 'develop (6.8beta0)' into gsoc
5455c8dFixed whitespace and a couple doctests

comment:49 Changed 22 months ago by spice

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

Patch has been rebased to Sage 6.8beta0, and I've implemented the changes suggested by Volker.

All doctests pass (except one numerical tolerance failure in src/sage/tests/french_book/linsolve_doctest.py, but this has already been pointed out by Rob Beezer in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-release/QJJLny-GgRs/Agldt9D-RHYJ as an SMC architecture issue).

comment:50 Changed 22 months ago by chapoton

I have had a quick look, and things seems ok.

One typo : pathalogically

please remove changes to .gitignore

and why not use the existing dilog function ?

Last edited 22 months ago by chapoton (previous) (diff)

comment:51 Changed 22 months ago by chapoton

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

comment:52 Changed 21 months ago by was

I just tried to build against sage-6.8.beta7 and this fails due to using "flint_depends" in the module_list.py. Evidently flint_depends no longer exists.

comment:53 Changed 21 months ago by was

And that this still hasn't got into Sage is depressing.

comment:54 Changed 21 months ago by vbraun

Well can we fix the build failure, the typo, and the .gitignore thing? That shouldn't take more than five minutes...

comment:55 follow-up: Changed 21 months ago by chapoton

  • Branch changed from u/spice/analytic_rank_bound to public/ticket/16773
  • Commit changed from 5455c8da1c124656fd388800a416e3ebc0d2ba8a to 8ca05d1ad73c40eb744ab727ea9efd8d47cf0615

done

but still nobody has answered my question about the dilog


New commits:

5fc1a81Merge branch 'u/spice/analytic_rank_bound' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into 16773
8ca05d1trac #16773 remove flint_dep, correct typo and correct gitignore

comment:56 in reply to: ↑ 55 Changed 21 months ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from needs_work to positive_review

Replying to chapoton:

but still nobody has answered my question about the dilog

Because its not a particularly productive or useful line of inquiry. For general discussions there is sage-devel, if you want to propose some guideline on methods vs functions then open a different ticket. Review should consist of immediately actionable items.

comment:57 Changed 21 months ago by chapoton

What ?!

My question was not a matter of "general discussion" but the very precise point that this ticket is reimplementing the dilog function instead of using the existing one. If you think that one should not care for such a code duplication, then of course let us do whatever we want, without boring about explaining why.

comment:58 Changed 21 months ago by vbraun

First of all, the ticket does not reimplement the dilog. It uses a library function. The only question is: Should RDF have a convenience .dilog() method next to .sin() etc. The answer to the latter is: I don't give a rat's ass. Its such an inconsequential detail, I want the 5 seconds of my life back that I spent thinking about it. Do you think Sage's success will depend on whether RDF elements have a dilog method? Try to contrast it with the importance of implementing the analytic rank bound.

comment:59 Changed 21 months ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

Some more numerical noise on 32-bit:

sage -t --long src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/lfunctions/zero_sums.pyx", line 337, in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.logarithmic_derivative
Failed example:
    Z.logarithmic_derivative(2.2,num_terms=50000) # long time
Expected:
    (0.5751579645060139, 0.008988775519160675)
Got:
    (0.5751579645060141, 0.008988775519160675)
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  10 in sage.lfunctions.zero_sums.LFunctionZeroSum_abstract.logarithmic_derivative
    [132 tests, 1 failure, 8.98 s]
sage -t --long src/sage/rings/real_double.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/rings/real_double.pyx", line 2198, in sage.rings.real_double.RealDoubleElement.dilog
Failed example:
    RDF(2).dilog()
Expected:
    2.46740110027234
Got:
    2.4674011002723395
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of   3 in sage.rings.real_double.RealDoubleElement.dilog
    [423 tests, 1 failure, 0.32 s]

Just needs a suitable # rel tol...

comment:60 Changed 21 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from 8ca05d1ad73c40eb744ab727ea9efd8d47cf0615 to 7056dd9e8dacf3602edc1134b12368017999dd38

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

dce6f12Merge branch 'public/ticket/16773' into 6.8.b8
7056dd9trac #16773 adding rel tol in 2 places

comment:61 Changed 21 months ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from needs_work to positive_review

comment:62 Changed 21 months ago by vbraun

  • Branch changed from public/ticket/16773 to 7056dd9e8dacf3602edc1134b12368017999dd38
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.