Opened 11 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#9547 closed defect (duplicate)
x * Infinity assumes that x is positive
Reported by: | fredrik.johansson | Owned by: | burcin |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
Component: | symbolics | Keywords: | |
Cc: | kcrisman | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | Burcin Erocal, Volker Braun | |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
sage: var('x') * Infinity +Infinity
This is not right; x could represent something non-positive.
Change History (13)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
- Component changed from algebra to symbolics
- Milestone set to sage-5.1
- Owner changed from AlexGhitza to burcin
- Reviewers set to Burcin Erocal
This is fixed by #12950. There is a doctest on line 2429 of sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
. We should close this ticket when that is merged.
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc kcrisman added
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.1 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:6 follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 9 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix to sage-5.2
Patch is at #12950, but still a valid ticket; that was a meta-ticket for the Pynac upgrade.
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 ; follow-up: ↓ 8 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 Changed 9 years ago by
Patch is at #12950, but still a valid ticket; that was a meta-ticket for the Pynac upgrade.
Same question as #1861: why doesn't this count as duplicate/invalid/wontfix?
In my opinion (only?), tickets that are closed by metatickets are not duplicates. It seems better to me (only?) to make it clear that work went into all of the issues we close, instead of making it seem like we have hundreds of duplicates that people open. We already do have enough duplicates as it is :)
And we certainly fixed it, so it's not "wontfix", and it's not invalid either, or at least wasn't before #12950, which however, explicitly refers to this ticket - it's not like some other change in #12950 made this invalid, which does sometimes happen.
comment:9 follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 9 years ago by
If the issue is fixed by a different ticket, then this ticket should be either a "duplicate" or a "worksforme".
Has a doctest been added for this? If not, one could consider needs_work.
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 9 years ago by
If the issue is fixed by a different ticket, then this ticket should be either a "duplicate" or a "worksforme".
I simply disagree. So you are saying that, hypothetically, a gigantic metaticket for foo.spkg that bundles fifty changes, all of which are doctested by some huge patch at that ticket, means all the others are duplicates? That seems to denigrate the hard work that went into each of those other tickets. Although the people currently working on these particular tickets are not counting on this material for promotion, that is certainly a future possibility, as standards evolve, especially at less research-focused institutions.
Has a doctest been added for this? If not, one could consider needs_work.
Yes, it is at #12950.
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 ; follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to kcrisman:
If the issue is fixed by a different ticket, then this ticket should be either a "duplicate" or a "worksforme".
I simply disagree. So you are saying that, hypothetically, a gigantic metaticket for foo.spkg that bundles fifty changes, all of which are doctested by some huge patch at that ticket, means all the others are duplicates? That seems to denigrate the hard work that went into each of those other tickets. Although the people currently working on these particular tickets are not counting on this material for promotion, that is certainly a future possibility, as standards evolve, especially at less research-focused institutions.
You could give credit to those people on the other gigantic metaticket.
On this particular ticket here, I don't see any work done, so I would simply close it as duplicate.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 9 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.2 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Reviewers changed from Burcin Erocal to Burcin Erocal, Volker Braun
You could give credit to those people on the other gigantic metaticket.
Which Burcin did. The point was that although a ticket isn't a great measure of work, we don't have to make it an even worse measure.
On this particular ticket here, I don't see any work done, so I would simply close it as duplicate.
Well, I was going by the fact that someone else filled in author and reviewer fields and the work "just happened" to be there; see also the discussion at #12950. But if you insist, I suppose I've engaged in enough bikeshedding for one day.
comment:13 Changed 9 years ago by
- Resolution set to duplicate
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Likely the solution will be related with #11506.