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


Add the logarithmic integral, Li, with integration starting at 0 rather than 2.

Attachments (2)

li(x).patch (2.5 KB) - added by myurko 13 years ago.
non-offset-log-int.patch (2.7 KB) - added by Karl-Dieter Crisman 13 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (13)

Changed 13 years ago by myurko

Attachment: li(x).patch added

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by myurko

Status: newneeds_review

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by Karl-Dieter Crisman

Status: needs_reviewneeds_work

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.

Changed 13 years ago by Karl-Dieter Crisman

Attachment: non-offset-log-int.patch added

comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by Karl-Dieter Crisman

Authors: Michael Yurko
Report Upstream: N/A
Status: needs_workneeds_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 Karl-Dieter Crisman

Reviewers: Karl-Dieter Crisman
Status: needs_reviewpositive_review

comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by Burcin Erocal

Status: positive_reviewneeds_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 Burcin Erocal

Keywords: beginner added

comment:7 Changed 11 years ago by Karl-Dieter Crisman

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 Benjamin Jones

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 Karl-Dieter Crisman

Milestone: sage-4.7.2sage-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 Karl-Dieter Crisman

Authors: Michael Yurko
Status: needs_workpositive_review

This is definitely and definitively duplicated by the much more comprehensive #11143.

comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by Jeroen Demeyer

Resolution: duplicate
Status: positive_reviewclosed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.