cvs-maxima tests



Raymond Toy wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "James" == James Amundson <amundson@fnal.gov> writes:
> 
>     James> Previously, I could do this:
> 
>     James> (C1) %j[1](sqrt(x));
>     James> (D1)                                  %J (SQRT(x))
>     James>                                 1
> 
>     James> Now, I get this:
> 
>     James> (C1) %j[1](sqrt(x));
> 
>     James> Is   x  positive, negative, or zero?
> 
>     James> This bug has to be fixed. I see you updated to tests to work around the
>     James> bug. Please roll back those changes. I haven't found the source of the
>     James> bug yet, but the above information should be a good lead.
> 
> Yes.  I'll fix this asap.
> 
> But perhaps my choice of using adding simplifiers to %j was wrong.
> Maybe I should have left them for bessel_j, as Macsyma seems to call
> it?  I didn't do that because I didn't want to duplicate whatever was
> done for %j and friends.
> 
>     >> For rtest14.mac, test 3 has the wrong value for bessel(2,3), which is
>     >> purely real, not complex.

BesselJ[2,3.0000000000000000] in Mathematica is
0.4860912605858910769078310941149840346217631456341594  approximately.
> 
>     James> Right. The only reason I hadn't updated that number is that I wanted to
>     James> get verify the number through a third party. It is obvious that some of
>     James> the tests in the special function section are checking against values
>     James> that are incorrect past single-precision. I would love to have a
>     James> volunteer audit all the special function numerical tests. Comparison
>     James> with a third party is really necessary.
> 
> FWIW, matlab says
> 
> 0.12894324947440
> 
> whereas we say
> 
> 0.1289432494744021
> 
> If you really want an answer, I'll probably have to hit the library to
> find some more accurate tables.
> 
>     >> Don't know about test 16.  I suspect this
>     >> might be caused by my change to make %j[1/2](x) expand to elementary
>     >> functions.
> 
>     James> Is it related to the bug I described above?
> 
> I modified the bessel routines not to expand these unless besselexpand
> is true.  Test 16 passes now.
> 
> Ray
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima@www.math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima