-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 517
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
2 bugs creating a simple 2-point Polytope #22552
Comments
comment:1
If I understood correctly, #18220 tries to fix this and other problems by disallowing inexact fields completely... |
Branch: u/jipilab/22552 |
Author: Jean-Philippe Labbé |
Changed keywords from none to base ring, polyhedron |
Commit: |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:6
Do you really want to keep this behavior?
|
comment:7
Computations over |
comment:8
An example
|
comment:9
Replying to @videlec:
No, not really... But at least describing the current behavior may be useful to understand how the constructor works. Is that reasonable? Once this behavior is changed, I'd just delete the paragraph. |
comment:10
This ticket only looks at the bugs, now with #18220 merged, the behavior is changed and the "bugs" have now an explanation. What else should be done here? |
comment:11
Should the "Do what I mean" be changed completely? Or should the base_ring passed by the constructor to the parent always be |
comment:12
Replying to @jplab:
When documented, a bug becomes a feature! What about
|
comment:13
An example of undesirable feature
|
comment:14
Okay, yes, that sounds good! |
comment:15
Should I keep the 3 examples showing the difference also? |
comment:16
Further, the warning bugs me a bit... It does not tell the complete truth about the behaviour: you only need 1 entry to have a 53 bit mentissa to get into floating points not necessary all of them... This is even worse I find! This is somehow the source of the weird behavior described in this ticket. The fact that one value had 53 bit of mentissa made it possible to create the object, and I would say lead to the belief that the polyhedron is well defined.
|
comment:17
I know not everyone is a fan of issuing a warning, but IMHO, I would find it a useful hint to the user if:
To say: Warning: some entries had more precision than 53 bits and got converted to 53 bits of precision. This would not be issued if no entries had more precision than 53 bits. |
comment:19
We should probably add a dependancy to #22605 because the latter touches the constructor and floats... |
Dependencies: #22605 |
Changed dependencies from #22605 to none |
comment:23
Tests seem to pass on 8.1.beta2 but it would be nice to have feedback on the added documentation. |
comment:24
You should be more explicit about what is meant by precision
It is not the number of digits but closer to |
comment:25
This is not the syntax for test blocks
see http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/coding_basics.html#documentation-strings |
comment:26
Since there is four examples in the examples, I don't see why the 'TESTS' section is relevant in your commit. |
Reviewer: Vincent Delecroix |
Changed keywords from base ring, polyhedron to base ring, polyhedron, days88, IMA coding sprints |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:29
Dear Vincent, I made some corrections addressing your comments. Have a look. |
comment:31
This sentence is definitely too complicated
I would try to be more informative
BTW, what is happening on 32 bits? |
comment:32
It seems that binary64 format from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754 has 53 bits of precision no matter if it was compiled in 32 or 64 bits processors. I'm no expert here but it seems to be safe to say that a |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:34
A (bad) undocumented feature
As agreed with JP, I wrote a commit that makes the above an error. New commits:
|
Changed branch from u/jipilab/22552 to u/vdelecroix/22552 |
comment:35
The last changes look good to me. I give my green light on the last changes. |
Changed branch from u/vdelecroix/22552 to |
Sara Billey (of Univ of Washington) reported these.
See public worksheet: https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/53b9d6b6-ce2c-4007-843a-257cc01bf65b/files/Sara/Polygon%20Bug.sagews
CC: @jplab @mo271 @mkoeppe @videlec
Component: geometry
Keywords: base ring, polyhedron, days88, IMA coding sprints
Author: Jean-Philippe Labbé
Branch/Commit:
150c7df
Reviewer: Vincent Delecroix
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22552
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: