-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 512
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
sage 9.6 special function translation issue with fricas. elliptic_ec #34058
Comments
comment:1
see #34062 |
comment:2
It seems that FriCAS' ellipticE is different from sage's elliptic_e:
Do you know the precise relationship? |
comment:3
a reference is 19.2.5 in |
comment:4
see also the comment before (53) in https://mathworld.wolfram.com/EllipticIntegral.html which explains the different competing notations EDIT: see rather https://mathworld.wolfram.com/EllipticIntegraloftheSecondKind.html |
comment:5
Fricas : Sage : So Fricas definition is non-standard but with respect to z ! Ugly conversion : |
comment:6
For the complete elliptic integral, we are fine? |
comment:7
yes, and there is already a doctest for that in src/sage/functions/special.py |
Commit: |
comment:9
doctest will be provided tomorrow or so New commits:
|
Dependencies: #34062 |
comment:11
not sure that it's a good idea to build upon #34062, which may be in a very unstable state any idea why Fricas does not use the standard definitions ? already for dilog.. |
comment:12
I'm not sure, but I think without #34062 it won't work, because |
comment:13
Fyi, list of Fricas special functions and their signatures at https://fricas.github.io/api/SpecialFunctionCategory.html From the above:
|
comment:14
Should we somehow deal that the conversion is only valid for |
comment:15
re comment:11: I don't think it's nonstandard, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_integral |
Changed keywords from fricas intergate symbolic to FriCAS |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:18
Replying to @mantepse:
Wikipedia is not a valid reference for scientific purposes. It uses a confusing notation with functions |
comment:19
Ping? (especially comment:14) |
comment:20
the doctest in and the doctest there must now start with |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
Author: Martin Rubey |
comment:22
ok, let's go note that the correct |
Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton |
Changed branch from u/mantepse/sage_9_6_special_function_translation_issue_with_fricas__elliptic_ec to |
Changed commit from |
comment:25
I tested this in sagemath 9.7 beta 5 on Linux. But it is still not correct. Even though there is no exception now, which is good, but the result from Fricas 1.3.8 returns ellipticF but there is no ellipticF in sagemath. It should have been translated to sagemath elliptic_f ?
--Nasser |
comment:26
Should I open a new ticket on this new issues since this ticket is closed? |
comment:27
Yes, please! |
comment:28
OK. Created new ticket. Here is the link to it Thanks |
Using sagemath 9.6 and fricas 1.3.8.
Fricas solve this integral and returns ellipticF and ellipticE in result, both which take two arguments.
Sagemath seems to translate these to its own elliptic_ec for some reason, which takes only 1 argument and hence gives an exception.
Why did it not translate these to sagemath elliptic_f and elliptic_e? Both which are available in sagemath and take 2 arguments?
Here is an example
Here is the result using fricas directly
You can see Fricas result do not contain elliptic_ec
Is this a translation problem? Is there something I can do to fix this before running this integral? Right now many integrals are failing using fricas due to this when they should not be failing.
Here is link to sagemath documentation on special functions
Depends on #34062
Component: interfaces
Keywords: FriCAS
Author: Martin Rubey
Branch:
7a172e2
Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34058
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: