#25119 closed defect (fixed)
Fail to integrate sqrt(x^2)/x
Reported by: | rws | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-9.2 |
Component: | calculus | Keywords: | integral |
Cc: | slelievre, kcrisman | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Frédéric Chapoton | Reviewers: | Karl-Dieter Crisman |
Report Upstream: | Reported upstream. No feedback yet. | Work issues: | |
Branch: | 744d626 (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) | Commit: | 744d62637e46805dff3723cebb5b4d30017f370d |
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
sage: integrate(sqrt(x^2)/x,x) ... RuntimeError: ECL says: Error executing code in Maxima: expt: undefined: 0 to a negative exponent. sage: integrate(sqrt(x^2)/x,x,algorithm='fricas') sqrt(x^2) sage: integrate(sqrt(x^2)/x,x,algorithm='giac') x*sign(x) sage: integrate(sqrt(x^2)/x,x,algorithm='sympy') sqrt(x^2)
See Maxima bug 3657.
Change History (12)
comment:1 Changed 7 months ago by
- Branch set to u/chapoton/25119
- Commit set to 744d62637e46805dff3723cebb5b4d30017f370d
- Keywords integral added
- Milestone changed from sage-8.2 to sage-9.3
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 Changed 7 months ago by
Thanks, Frédéric. Can I ask whether the changes other than the new doctest and the addition of RunTimeError
are nontrivial? I don't think so, but there were a lot of prettification changes.
comment:4 Changed 7 months ago by
In vanilla Maxima:
(%i4) domain:complex; (%o4) complex (%i5) integrate(sqrt(x^2)/x,x); expt: undefined: 0 to a negative exponent. -- an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true);
comment:5 Changed 7 months ago by
However, before giving positive review, I'd suppose we'd want a way to check that this one was fixed - maybe # known bug
below it where we require algorithm='maxima'
?
comment:6 Changed 7 months ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Report Upstream changed from N/A to Reported upstream. No feedback yet.
comment:7 Changed 7 months ago by
All the other changes are purely white space removal or addition, for the sake of flake8 conmpliance.
I guess one could a "known bug" doctest, yes.
comment:8 Changed 7 months ago by
Ah yes. I haven't used that, personally, but I'm sure it complains a lot. Unfortunately, it just makes tickets harder to review at times. I won't raise this on -devel because I know how annoyingly much extra work it would be, but having two different commits for that sort of thing is helpful to reviewers.
comment:9 Changed 7 months ago by
Do you want the "known bug" doctest ? This does not seem to be really necessary to me. We are not responsible for maxima bugs.
comment:10 Changed 7 months ago by
- Reviewers set to Karl-Dieter Crisman
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
It would be nice, because we typically do this in other cases. But I guess since in this case it is an actual exception raised, as opposed to a wrong result we had to work around, it is not necessary.
But if Volker complains about failing doctests, I am trusting your morally green patchbot :-) Just upgraded OS (still several versions behind) and so won't be building new Sage for a little while until I have time to check that command line tools are working properly.
comment:11 Changed 7 months ago by
- Branch changed from u/chapoton/25119 to 744d62637e46805dff3723cebb5b4d30017f370d
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:12 Changed 7 months ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-9.3 to sage-9.2
Here is a fix (bandaid). One should report upstream to maxima.
New commits:
fix some details in integration, make one more integral work