Opened 5 years ago

Last modified 5 years ago

#19532 closed enhancement

asymptotic expansion generators related to singularity analysis — at Version 11

Reported by: dkrenn Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-7.1
Component: asymptotic expansions Keywords:
Cc: behackl, cheuberg Merged in:
Authors: Daniel Krenn Reviewers: Clemens Heuberger
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: u/cheuberg/asy/singularity-analysis (Commits) Commit: a3a6dfd1d57038d14ee453d37884da19ad6d59cd
Dependencies: #19437, #19510, #19576 Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by cheuberg)

Create asymptotic expansions coming from pole singularities.

Change History (11)

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by dkrenn

  • Branch set to u/dkrenn/asy/singularity-analysis

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by dkrenn

  • Commit set to 3214c83c3a91f0eea73ad0068473661b1c228bfc

Implemented pole singularities.


Last 10 new commits:

e93ce46simplify coefficients automatically and use the faster algorithm per default
f468de6docu
4a27e66result over QQ if skip-parameter given
e59c71ftoc entry (at top of file)
e1aca77SR.symbol: set parent correctly (inheritance)
9ac89aeMove pynac_symbol_registry to cdef attribute SR.symbols
e06f8aeMerge branch 'u/jdemeyer/symbolic/sub-var' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into asy/singularity-analysis
f2573a9calculate coefficients of singularity analysis (pole type)
b2e375fgenerator SingularityAnalysis (pole type)
3214c83explicitly specify a default default-precision

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 3214c83c3a91f0eea73ad0068473661b1c228bfc to 8ec2dfd1c61a30960d80cba160d46a93014cdad5

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

8ec2dfdfix docstring

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by cheuberg

  • Branch changed from u/dkrenn/asy/singularity-analysis to u/cheuberg/asy/singularity-analysis

comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 8ec2dfd1c61a30960d80cba160d46a93014cdad5 to ab1cd26496a64408e8701bfe306ee6ee399e2d76

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

8f7195fTrac #19576: parentheses around coefficients of asymptotic expansions
ab1cd26Trac #19532: Merge #19576 to fix doctest

comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from ab1cd26496a64408e8701bfe306ee6ee399e2d76 to 9796508e6aac3883a8175a19294456685ba37c64

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

9796508Trac #19532: fix doctest

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by cheuberg

  • Milestone changed from sage-6.10 to sage-7.1

My impression is that you implemented poles and still want to implement logarithmic singularities in the same ticket. I'd suggest to restrict this ticket to poles (and raising NotImplementedError for the logarithmic singularities, as apparently done in the current code) and to leave extensions to future tickets.

comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by cheuberg

  • Dependencies changed from #19437, #19510 to #19437, #19510, #19576

comment:9 Changed 5 years ago by dkrenn

  • Status changed from new to needs_review

comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 9796508e6aac3883a8175a19294456685ba37c64 to a3a6dfd1d57038d14ee453d37884da19ad6d59cd

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

f114f9eTrac #19532: Add to table of contents
ede5173Trac #19532: Minor documentation fixes
267718dTrac #19532: Additional tests
0860173Trac #19532: List log log factors, document missing implementations
a3a6dfdTrac #19532: Add references

comment:11 Changed 5 years ago by cheuberg

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Reviewers set to Clemens Heuberger
  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_info

I reviewed the code, doctests pass, documentation and code are mostly fine. I added a few reviewer commits, please cross-review.

There is only the question on what to do with integral alpha <= 0. Currently, the result is 0 which is certainly correct for sufficiently large values of the parameter. However, the rest of the asymptotics code as I remember it does not really assume "sufficiently large values of the parameter".

I am not really sure which result is appropriate. Several options:

  • 0 - valid for sufficiently large values of the parameter. (current version)
  • O(1) - correct, but bad for applications.
  • raise an error
  • add a warning to the documentation
  • add a note to the documentation
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.