Here it is:
(%i1) double_factorial(10.0);
(%o1) 3839.999999999999
BTW you mentioned you were on Solaris. If memory serves me correctly,
doesn't a sun have 1 more digit in the mantissa as opposed to the
exponent? That might explain the difference.
Also, my comment about things working were after the tolerance was
lowered. No surprises here.
David
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 11:26 -0500, Raymond Toy wrote:
> David Ronis wrote:
> > Here's what I get:
> >
> > (%i1) :lisp (expt 2d0 (/ #c(10d0 0d0) 2));
> > #C(32.0 0.0)
> > (%i1) :lisp (gamma-lanczos (+ 1 (/ #c(10d0 0d0) 2)));
> > #C(119.99999999999996 0.0)
> > (%i1) :lisp (expt (/ 2 (float pi)) (/ (- 1 (cos (* (float pi) #c(10d0
> > 0d0)))) 4));
> > #C(1.0 0.0)
> >
> > Looks the same as yours.
>
> Interesting. Then what does double_factorial(10.0) return?
>
> > BTW, the testsuite now doesn't complain.
>
> You mean after you updated from CVS again? That's because Dieter
> changed the threshold. I wonder if there's not something else going on,
> and the original threshold was correct.
>
> Ray
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>