Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Nils Bruin <nbruin <at> sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: analytic_rank() discussed on mathoverflow
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel
Date: Monday 12th November 2012 17:58:51 UTC (over 3 years ago)
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
Birch--Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" 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/sage-devel?hl=en.
 
CD: 2ms