On Nov 12, 9:46 am, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> please have a look (and perhaps reply  I am not an expert on this
> stuff):
It has to check that a certain analytic function vanishes to 8th order
at a particular point. That involves proving that all its derivatives
up to 7th order vanish at the point. It's the *proving* that's hard.
However, proving that they're not 0 is straightforward: Just
approximate to sufficient precision.
Thus, if sage gets it wrong and pari and magma get it right then it
looks like sage gets a precision bound wrong somewhere. One would
normally expect that a routine like this will err by *overestimating*
the order of vanishing, since underestimating involves saying "I
cannot really distinguish this approximated value from zero, but I bet
it's nonzero".
That, or sage is correct and we're looking at a counterexample of the
BirchSwinnertonDyer conjecture.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sagedevel" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sagedevel?hl=en.
