706
Comment:

1413

Deletions are marked like this.  Additions are marked like this. 
Line 2:  Line 2: 
TODO: 1. Stuff still computed using gp: * Delta polynomials in _recursions_at_infinity (search for comment below) * _without_gp (gamma_series) has this line sinser = sage_eval(rs(gp_eval('Vec(sin(Pi*(%s)))'%(z0+x)))) * init_Ginf: still uses pari (see below) * Ginf: still uses pari to evaluate continued fraction 2. Doctest everything, making sure it all works 100% and fix issues with coercion, complex inputs, etc., as they are systematically uncovered. 3. Possibly maybe change from digits to bits prec. 4. Optimize.  

Line 19:  Line 35: 
Dokchiter's Paper: attachment:dokchitser.pdf 
Dokchitser Project for Sage Days 11
TODO:
 Stuff still computed using gp:
 Delta polynomials in _recursions_at_infinity (search for comment below)
 _without_gp (gamma_series) has this line
 sinser = sage_eval(rs(gp_eval('Vec(sin(Pi*(%s)))'%(z0+x))))
 init_Ginf: still uses pari (see below)
 Ginf: still uses pari to evaluate continued fraction
 Doctest everything, making sure it all works 100% and fix issues with coercion, complex inputs, etc., as they are systematically uncovered.
 Possibly maybe change from digits to bits prec.
 Optimize.
From Jen:
Here's the version (closest to Dokchitser's original pari code) that still uses continued fraction approximation:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jen/sage3.0.5x86_64Linux/l4.py
(needs gamma_series.py to run:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jen/sage3.0.5x86_64Linux/gamma_series.py)
The version with Pade approximation (l5.py) has a negligible speedup but only really works for low precision. I'm not sure if Pade gives us a means of computing bounds (I think Mike Rubinstein said that continued fractions won't). Also, l4.py doesn't work for imaginary inputs yet  some coercion with SymbolicRing that I didn't try.
Dokchiter's Paper: attachment:dokchitser.pdf