Thanks--using Clozure CL, I also see these failures. Either I'll mark
these as known bugs, make bfloat_approx_equal less strict, or fix the
hypergeometric code. For now, let's live with these bugs (once bugs
are marked as known, it's easy to forget about them :)
Barton
maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu wrote on 08/24/2009 02:16:17 PM:
> [image removed]
>
> Re: [Maxima] float_approx_equal
>
> Dieter Kaiser
>
> to:
>
> Barton Willis
>
> 08/24/2009 03:09 PM
>
> Sent by:
>
> maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu
>
> Cc:
>
> "maxima at math.utexas.edu"
>
> Am Sonntag, den 23.08.2009, 16:01 -0500 schrieb Barton Willis:
> > I committed improved (I hope) functions float_approx_equal and
> > bfloat_approx_equal. I used the method given in Knuth, "The Art of
> > Computer Programming," 3rd edition, page 233.
> >
> > The test suite (Clozure CL) ran OK---let me know if you all see new
> > test failures.
>
> I have run the testsuite and the share_testsuite with CLISP 2.44 on a
> Linux system. I had no problems with the testsuite.
>
> I think the following failures in the share_testsuite are new:
>
> ********************** Problem 109 ***************
> Input:
> hypergeometric([1, 1], [2], 9.98b-1)
>
>
> Result:
> 6.2270622228679275974b0
>
> This differed from the expected result:
> 6.2270622228679275978b0
>
> ********************** Problem 111 ***************
> Input:
> hypergeometric([1, 1], [2], 9.99b-1)
>
>
> Result:
> 6.9146699489310681197b0
>
> This differed from the expected result:
> 6.9146699489310681202b0
>
> ********************** Problem 113 ***************
> Input:
> block([fpprec : 18], hypergeometric([1, 1], [2], 1.3b0))
>
>
> Result:
> 9.26132926404566148b-1 - 2.41660973353061018b0 %i
>
> This differed from the expected result:
> 9.26132926404566185b-1 - 2.4166097335306102b0 %i
>
> Dieter Kaiser
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima