Timeline for Computer algebra errors
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2023 at 7:32 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Jul 31, 2013 at 16:29 | comment | added | MvG | Talking about sage, note that trac.sagemath.org/report/79 has a list of known issues which silently result in wrong results, as opposed to error messages, crashes and the likes. There are just 9 at the time of this writing. It seems to be incomplete, though. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 6:10 | comment | added | Junkie | First a note: due to its concept, SAGE can also inherit many of the bugs of its parts (PARI, and more). I've seen SAGE Days talks where they try to ferret out symbolic calculus contingencies, but, to be blunt, it seemed that the intersection of those capable addressing the problems with those interested in doing it (typed expressions to start) in SAGE, was zero, at least then. For an alternate count, Magma does list bug-fixes in patch releases. For version 2.15 over a year, there were 250 fixes listed. Magma doesn't do much analysis, and has a low interface, so it avoids all those worries. | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 18:07 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | But 'peer review' has essentially established (over 15 years ago) that the fundamental design of using untyped expressions when doing symbolic calculus (i.e. computing closed-forms) is unsound. SAGE does not fix that - so the fact that it is open source and publicly available changes that how? SAGE is, by explicit design, just as bad as the closed-source systems at analysis. While I am a definite fan of open source, I do not see how, in this case, that is actually relevant. | |
| Feb 25, 2010 at 15:20 | comment | added | kakaz | That is why SAGE and other OPEN SOURCE initiatives works great here: because implementation detail are publicly available ( as well as binaries, which allows testing for free). No secret methods, no unproven improvements without peer review... | |
| Feb 17, 2010 at 16:30 | history | edited | Jacques Carette | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 81 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2010 at 16:29 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | Agreed - I have edited my response to be more precise. | |
| Feb 17, 2010 at 14:38 | comment | added | Steven Sivek | I'm not claiming Sage is bug-free, but a lot of those bugs aren't mathematical errors -- there are plenty of compilation issues, documentation problems, etc., not to mention nearly 700 tickets classified as "enhancement" rather than "defect" -- so claiming 1582 known bugs is a little misleading. | |
| Feb 17, 2010 at 4:22 | history | answered | Jacques Carette | CC BY-SA 2.5 |