GNU bug report logs - #64077
30.0.50; Wrong definition of gamma function in calc.texi [PATCH]

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 64077 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 64077 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 30.0.50; Wrong definition of gamma function in calc.texi [PATCH]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 12:25:04 +0800

No Emacs code is affected, but the Gamma Function is defined by a
convergent integral, not a divergent one.

Patch below:

---   doc/misc/calc.texi
@@ -18614,7 +18614,7 @@ Advanced Math Functions
 factorial function:  @samp{gamma(n+1) = fact(n)}.  For general complex
 arguments the gamma function can be defined by the following definite
 integral:
-@texline @math{\Gamma(a) = \int_0^\infty t^{a-1} e^t dt}.
+@texline @math{\Gamma(a) = \int_0^\infty t^{a-1} e^{-t} dt}.
 @infoline @expr{gamma(a) = integ(t^(a-1) exp(t), t, 0, inf)}.
 (The actual implementation uses far more efficient computational methods.)



-- 
Your sincerely,
Vladimir Nikishkin (MiEr, lockywolf)
(Laptop)

Message #10 received at 64077-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 64077-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#64077: 30.0.50;
 Wrong definition of gamma function in calc.texi [PATCH]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:41:00 +0300

> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 12:25:04 +0800
> 
> No Emacs code is affected, but the Gamma Function is defined by a
> convergent integral, not a divergent one.
> 
> Patch below:
> 
> ---   doc/misc/calc.texi
> @@ -18614,7 +18614,7 @@ Advanced Math Functions
>  factorial function:  @samp{gamma(n+1) = fact(n)}.  For general complex
>  arguments the gamma function can be defined by the following definite
>  integral:
> -@texline @math{\Gamma(a) = \int_0^\infty t^{a-1} e^t dt}.
> +@texline @math{\Gamma(a) = \int_0^\infty t^{a-1} e^{-t} dt}.
>  @infoline @expr{gamma(a) = integ(t^(a-1) exp(t), t, 0, inf)}.
>  (The actual implementation uses far more efficient computational methods.)

Thanks, fixed.  (But the corresponding @infoline needed to be fixed as
well, right?  So I did that.  And switched to using @sup there, to
produce a nicer HTML output.)

Closing.

Message #13 received at 64077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> suse.de>
To: 64077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: eliz <at> gnu.org, lockywolf <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#64077: 30.0.50; Wrong definition of gamma function in
 calc.texi [PATCH]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:54:26 +0200

On Jun 15 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 12:25:04 +0800
>> 
>> No Emacs code is affected, but the Gamma Function is defined by a
>> convergent integral, not a divergent one.
>> 
>> Patch below:
>> 
>> ---   doc/misc/calc.texi
>> @@ -18614,7 +18614,7 @@ Advanced Math Functions
>>  factorial function:  @samp{gamma(n+1) = fact(n)}.  For general complex
>>  arguments the gamma function can be defined by the following definite
>>  integral:
>> -@texline @math{\Gamma(a) = \int_0^\infty t^{a-1} e^t dt}.
>> +@texline @math{\Gamma(a) = \int_0^\infty t^{a-1} e^{-t} dt}.
>>  @infoline @expr{gamma(a) = integ(t^(a-1) exp(t), t, 0, inf)}.
>>  (The actual implementation uses far more efficient computational methods.)
>
> Thanks, fixed.  (But the corresponding @infoline needed to be fixed as
> well, right?  So I did that.  And switched to using @sup there, to
> produce a nicer HTML output.)

Using @sup{..} is wrong here, though.  The @infoline line is using calc
algebraic syntax.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab <at> suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Message #16 received at 64077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> suse.de>
Cc: lockywolf <at> gmail.com, 64077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#64077: 30.0.50; Wrong definition of gamma function in
 calc.texi [PATCH]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 11:01:25 +0300

> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> suse.de>
> Cc: eliz <at> gnu.org,  lockywolf <at> gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:54:26 +0200
> 
> On Jun 15 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, fixed.  (But the corresponding @infoline needed to be fixed as
> > well, right?  So I did that.  And switched to using @sup there, to
> > produce a nicer HTML output.)
> 
> Using @sup{..} is wrong here, though.  The @infoline line is using calc
> algebraic syntax.

I don't see how that follows.  Those look like function definitions to
me, and they are not inside @kbd (which would indicate something the
user should type into Calc).

So I don't think @sup is wrong there.

Message #19 received at 64077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> suse.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: lockywolf <at> gmail.com, 64077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#64077: 30.0.50; Wrong definition of gamma function in
 calc.texi [PATCH]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:16:14 +0200

On Jun 15 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I don't see how that follows.  Those look like function definitions to
> me, and they are not inside @kbd (which would indicate something the
> user should type into Calc).

Exactly, in algrebraic notion.  This is a TeX-like notation that uses
the literal characters ^ and _.

> So I don't think @sup is wrong there.

exp is a function, not a variable.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab <at> suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Message #22 received at 64077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> suse.de>
Cc: lockywolf <at> gmail.com, 64077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#64077: 30.0.50; Wrong definition of gamma function in
 calc.texi [PATCH]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 11:39:14 +0300

> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> suse.de>
> Cc: lockywolf <at> gmail.com,  64077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:16:14 +0200
> 
> exp is a function, not a variable.

Fixed, thanks.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.