[with additional patch, positive review] numerical noise? doctest failure in sage.rings.number_field.totallyreal.__selberg_zograf_bound with 2.10.2

[cremona]

A fresh 64-bit install of 2.10.2 gives this (and only this) error with "make check":

sage -t  devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal.py**********************************************************************
File "totallyreal.py", line 410:
   sage: sage.rings.number_field.totallyreal.__selberg_zograf_bound(8,7)
Expected:
   15.851871776151311
Got:
   15.851871776151313
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
  1 of   1 in __main__.example_5
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file .doctest_totallyreal.py
        [1.7 s]
exit code: 256

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following tests failed:


       sage -t  devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal.py

OS info:

jec@host-57-71%uname -a
Linux host-57-71 2.6.18.8-0.3-default #1 SMP Tue Apr 17 08:42:35 UTC 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

gcc version 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux)

[jvoight]

Deleted the function selberg_zograf_bound. Patch attached. JV

[craigcitro]

Same patch as the above, but it's a patch against 2.10.2, as opposed to the current working version of the code John and I are using (which is what the other patch above is against. ;) )

[mabshoff]

Merged trac-2279.patch in Sage 2.10.3.rc0

[craigcitro]

In the fix posted above, I did two things:

• removed selberg_zograf_bound, because it was causing numerical issues here and there, and wasn't actually used anywhere.

• changed the default choice of totally real field of discriminant 5 (which gets added to the list by hand), because John had done that in his patch. Unfortunately, I switched a - for a + when doing it, and added a non-totally-real field.

The new patch I've attached fixes the second of these.

[cremona]

I don't see the new patch. In fact the patches listed seem to be the same!

[craigcitro]

Yep, I'm still waiting for my copy of rc0 to finish its sage -clone on sage.math. I was guessing it would finish before anyone looked at this ticket. ;)

[cremona]

Combined patches are fine. Note that 8682.patch is the same as trac-2279.patch, so may be ignored, but that trac-2279.pt2.patch needs to be applied after trac-2279.patch.

[mabshoff]

Merged trac-2279.pt2.patch in Sage 2.10.3.rc1