Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
#1832 closed defect (fixed)
[with patch, with 2 positive reviews change how real(...) is defined in Sage
Reported by: | was | Owned by: | mhansen |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-2.10.1 |
Component: | basic arithmetic | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Merged in: | ||
Authors: | Reviewers: | ||
Report Upstream: | Work issues: | ||
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
On Jan 18, 2008 7:23 AM, Georg wrote: > > Hi, > questions concerning numbers, look at the following session > (sage-2.9.3): > > sage: r = 5/3 > sage: a = 2.5 > sage: type(a) > <type 'sage.rings.real_mpfr.RealNumber'> > sage: type(real(r)) > <type 'sage.rings.real_double.RealDoubleElement'> > sage: type(real(a)) > <type 'sage.rings.real_mpfr.RealNumber'> > sage: type(RR(r)) > <type 'sage.rings.real_mpfr.RealNumber'> > > so real() converts a rational to a real_double real is defined as: try: return x.real() except AttributeError: return CDF(x).real() so it's fallback behavior is to create an RDF, if it hasn't been otherwise defined. It should be the "real part" in general, so for the rationals (and integers) it should be defined to just return the rational number. Even better, the definition of the real default method should be changed to try coercing x to RDF and if that succeeds, just return x itself. > and a real_mpfr to a > real_mpfr, what's the difference between these types? Is a > real_double just a special case of a real_mpfr with precision 53? No. A real double is a double precision machine real. It is much faster than a real_mpfr with precision 53 bits. However, mpfr's have better numerical semantics. sage: a, b = RDF(3993), RDF(18) sage: c, d = RR(3993), RR(18) sage: time for _ in xrange(10^6): e = a*b CPU times: user 0.29 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.30 s Wall time: 0.31 sage: time for _ in xrange(10^6): e = c*d CPU times: user 0.77 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.78 s Wall time: 0.83 sage: time for _ in xrange(10^6): e = a.sin() CPU times: user 0.50 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.51 s Wall time: 0.56 sage: time for _ in xrange(10^6): e = c.sin() CPU times: user 12.24 s, sys: 1.38 s, total: 13.61 s Wall time: 14.98 > But > in this case the variable should be of type real_double? > Is there a performance difference between real_mpfr of precision 53 > and real_double, and if yes how can one convert to a real_double (from > real_mpfr with precision 53), like seen above with real() it's not > poosible, i just found out to do this by RDF(a), so maybe it's a bug > that real(a) is still a real_mpfr? real( ... ) means "real part" > How is the real_double implemented, i guess though mpfr? No. It uses GSL for most functionality actually. CDF for complex double is similar. William
Attachments (1)
Change History (5)
Changed 12 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by
- Owner changed from somebody to mhansen
- Status changed from new to assigned
- Summary changed from change how real(...) is defined in Sage to [with patch, needs review] change how real(...) is defined in Sage
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs review] change how real(...) is defined in Sage to [with patch, with positive review] change how real(...) is defined in Sage
comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, with positive review] change how real(...) is defined in Sage to [with patch, with 2 positive reviews change how real(...) is defined in Sage
comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from assigned to closed
Merged in Sage 2.10.1.alpha1
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
I can imagine similar problems arising, but this seems like a reasonable fix. Apply.