Opened 13 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#7357 closed enhancement (duplicate)
Add non-offset logarithmic integral, Li
| Reported by: | myurko | Owned by: | Burcin Erocal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
| Component: | calculus | Keywords: | beginner |
| Cc: | myurko, Benjamin Jones | Merged in: | |
| Authors: | Reviewers: | Karl-Dieter Crisman | |
| Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
| Branch: | Commit: | ||
| Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Status badges
Description
Add the logarithmic integral, Li, with integration starting at 0 rather than 2.
Attachments (2)
Change History (13)
Changed 13 years ago by
| Attachment: | li(x).patch added |
|---|
comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by
| Status: | new → needs_review |
|---|
comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by
| Status: | needs_review → needs_work |
|---|
Changed 13 years ago by
| Attachment: | non-offset-log-int.patch added |
|---|
comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by
| Authors: | → Michael Yurko |
|---|---|
| Report Upstream: | → N/A |
| Status: | needs_work → needs_review |
This patch adds these tests. It still depends on the (newest) patch at #3401, and in fact gets rid of one final thing which was only needed by the previous implementation of Li.
comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by
| Reviewers: | → Karl-Dieter Crisman |
|---|---|
| Status: | needs_review → positive_review |
comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by
| Status: | positive_review → needs_work |
|---|
This needs more work. See my comments about the prec parameter at comment:10:ticket:3401.
Two different functions whose names differ only in capitalization (li and Li) is also very confusing. We need to come up with a better name for this.
comment:6 Changed 12 years ago by
| Keywords: | beginner added |
|---|
comment:7 Changed 11 years ago by
| Cc: | Benjamin Jones added |
|---|
This seems to be addressed in the context of a much bigger overhaul by #11143. But there the name is... more complicated.
comment:8 Changed 11 years ago by
Yes, this would duplicate work done in #11143. The function added there is a fully symbolic function with numerical evaluation handled by mpmath. I think that is superior to the one defined here which is just a wrapper for the mpmath call.
The function added in #11143 is really a class called Function_exp_integral_li and it has an alias exp_integral_li to match the other exponential integrals. #11143 also moves all the exponential integrals to a new module under sage/functions so this would conflict with that design decision too.
comment:9 Changed 11 years ago by
| Milestone: | sage-4.7.2 → sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
|---|
So this can be closed as duplicate, correct? Except I really would love it to be called Li instead of something horribly long... either way, feel free to review this as positive; I'm changing the milestone.
comment:10 Changed 11 years ago by
| Authors: | Michael Yurko |
|---|---|
| Status: | needs_work → positive_review |
This is definitely and definitively duplicated by the much more comprehensive #11143.
comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by
| Resolution: | → duplicate |
|---|---|
| Status: | positive_review → closed |
This is nice, but like #3401, should have some doctests indicating it works for complex input (I assume it does). The patch also depends on #3401.