sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

Discussion in 'Python' started by Mensanator, Mar 3, 2008.

  1. Mensanator

    Mensanator Guest

    Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?

    import sympy
    import time
    import random

    f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,10000)]

    for i in xrange(10):
    f1 = random.choice(f)
    print f1,
    f2 = random.choice(f)
    print f2,
    C = f1*f2
    ff = None
    ff = sympy.factorint(C)
    print ff

    ## 7307 7243 [(7243, 1), (7307, 1)]
    ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]

    As in, "they're NOT random".

    The random number generator is broken by the sympy.factorint()
    function.

    Random.choice() works ok if the factorint() function commented out.

    ## 6089 1811 None
    ## 6449 1759 None
    ## 9923 4639 None
    ## 4013 4889 None
    ## 4349 2029 None
    ## 6703 8677 None
    ## 1879 1867 None
    ## 5153 5279 None
    ## 2011 4937 None
    ## 7253 5507 None

    This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it fucks up other modules.
     
    Mensanator, Mar 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mensanator

    Carl Banks Guest

    On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:
    > Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?
    >
    > import sympy
    > import time
    > import random
    >
    > f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,10000)]
    >
    > for i in xrange(10):
    > f1 = random.choice(f)
    > print f1,
    > f2 = random.choice(f)
    > print f2,
    > C = f1*f2
    > ff = None
    > ff = sympy.factorint(C)
    > print ff
    >
    > ## 7307 7243 [(7243, 1), (7307, 1)]
    > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    >
    > As in, "they're NOT random".
    >
    > The random number generator is broken by the sympy.factorint()
    > function.
    >
    > Random.choice() works ok if the factorint() function commented out.
    >
    > ## 6089 1811 None
    > ## 6449 1759 None
    > ## 9923 4639 None
    > ## 4013 4889 None
    > ## 4349 2029 None
    > ## 6703 8677 None
    > ## 1879 1867 None
    > ## 5153 5279 None
    > ## 2011 4937 None
    > ## 7253 5507 None
    >
    > This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules.


    Dude, relax.

    It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
    random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of
    b****ing about it, file a bug report. Or better yet, submit a patch.


    Carl Banks
     
    Carl Banks, Mar 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mensanator

    Mensanator Guest

    On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:
    > On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?

    >
    > > import sympy
    > > import time
    > > import random

    >
    > > f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,10000)]

    >
    > > for i in xrange(10):
    > >   f1 = random.choice(f)
    > >   print f1,
    > >   f2 = random.choice(f)
    > >   print f2,
    > >   C = f1*f2
    > >   ff = None
    > >   ff = sympy.factorint(C)
    > >   print ff

    >
    > > ##  7307 7243 [(7243, 1), (7307, 1)]
    > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > ##  8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > ##  8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > ##  8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > ##  8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]

    >
    > > As in, "they're NOT random".

    >
    > > The random number generator is broken by the sympy.factorint()
    > > function.

    >
    > > Random.choice() works ok if the factorint() function commented out.

    >
    > > ##  6089 1811 None
    > > ##  6449 1759 None
    > > ##  9923 4639 None
    > > ##  4013 4889 None
    > > ##  4349 2029 None
    > > ##  6703 8677 None
    > > ##  1879 1867 None
    > > ##  5153 5279 None
    > > ##  2011 4937 None
    > > ##  7253 5507 None

    >
    > > This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules.

    >
    > Dude, relax.
    >
    > It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
    > random number generator.  It would be a simple fix.  Instead of
    > b****ing about it, file a bug report.  


    I did.

    > Or better yet, submit a patch.


    I would if I knew what the problem was.

    I posted it here because someone recommended it.
    I'm simply un-recommending it. Those who don't care
    needn't pay any attention. Those who do should be
    glad that faults are pointed out when found.

    >
    > Carl Banks
     
    Mensanator, Mar 3, 2008
    #3
  4. Mensanator

    Robert Kern Guest

    Mensanator wrote:
    > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:


    >> It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
    >> random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of
    >> b****ing about it, file a bug report.

    >
    > I did.
    >
    >> Or better yet, submit a patch.

    >
    > I would if I knew what the problem was.


    Did you even try to figure it out? It took me all of 5 minutes to find the mistake.

    > I posted it here because someone recommended it.
    > I'm simply un-recommending it.


    It was a mistake, an easily remedied mistake, not a big unchangeable design
    decision. If you want to recommend against sympy as a package, there is a larger
    burden of proof that you have yet to meet.

    --
    Robert Kern

    "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
    that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
    an underlying truth."
    -- Umberto Eco
     
    Robert Kern, Mar 3, 2008
    #4
  5. Mensanator

    Carl Banks Guest

    On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:
    > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:

    >
    > > > Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?

    >
    > > > import sympy
    > > > import time
    > > > import random

    >
    > > > f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,10000)]

    >
    > > > for i in xrange(10):
    > > > f1 = random.choice(f)
    > > > print f1,
    > > > f2 = random.choice(f)
    > > > print f2,
    > > > C = f1*f2
    > > > ff = None
    > > > ff = sympy.factorint(C)
    > > > print ff

    >
    > > > ## 7307 7243 [(7243, 1), (7307, 1)]
    > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]

    >
    > > > As in, "they're NOT random".

    >
    > > > The random number generator is broken by the sympy.factorint()
    > > > function.

    >
    > > > Random.choice() works ok if the factorint() function commented out.

    >
    > > > ## 6089 1811 None
    > > > ## 6449 1759 None
    > > > ## 9923 4639 None
    > > > ## 4013 4889 None
    > > > ## 4349 2029 None
    > > > ## 6703 8677 None
    > > > ## 1879 1867 None
    > > > ## 5153 5279 None
    > > > ## 2011 4937 None
    > > > ## 7253 5507 None

    >
    > > > This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules.

    >
    > > Dude, relax.

    >
    > > It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
    > > random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of
    > > b****ing about it, file a bug report.

    >
    > I did.
    >
    > > Or better yet, submit a patch.

    >
    > I would if I knew what the problem was.
    >
    > I posted it here because someone recommended it.
    > I'm simply un-recommending it. Those who don't care
    > needn't pay any attention. Those who do should be
    > glad that faults are pointed out when found.


    1. You can point out the faults of a program without insults and
    vulgarity

    2. You must be terribly difficult to please if one bug is enough to
    recommend against a program as "worse than worthless"

    3. You must be terribly naive if you expect a freeware program with a
    version number of 0.5.12 not to have bugs


    Carl Banks
     
    Carl Banks, Mar 3, 2008
    #5
  6. I swear, this is one of the most polite-oriented groups I've ever
    seen.

    Not that that's a bad thing or anything, it's nice to be nice.

    (This has been Captain Universal Truth, over and out)
     
    apatheticagnostic, Mar 3, 2008
    #6
  7. Mensanator

    Mensanator Guest

    On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern <> wrote:
    > Mensanator wrote:
    > > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:
    > >> It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
    > >> random number generator.  It would be a simple fix.  Instead of
    > >> b****ing about it, file a bug report.  

    >
    > > I did.

    >
    > >> Or better yet, submit a patch.

    >
    > > I would if I knew what the problem was.

    >
    > Did you even try to figure it out? It took me all of 5 minutes to find the mistake.


    Could I trouble you to share? Then I could continue my testing.

    >
    > > I posted it here because someone recommended it.
    > > I'm simply un-recommending it.

    >
    > It was a mistake, an easily remedied mistake,


    But I didn't know that (and still don't).

    > not a big unchangeable design decision.


    I didn't know that either. For all I know, I might have to
    wait for the next version, and who knows when that will be?

    > If you want to recommend against sympy as a package, there is a larger
    > burden of proof that you have yet to meet.


    What kind of burden of proof must one have to recommend it in the
    first place?

    >
    > --
    > Robert Kern
    >
    > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
    >   that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
    >   an underlying truth."
    >    -- Umberto Eco
     
    Mensanator, Mar 3, 2008
    #7
  8. Mensanator

    Robert Kern Guest

    Mensanator wrote:
    > On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern <> wrote:
    >> Mensanator wrote:
    >>> On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:
    >>>> It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
    >>>> random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of
    >>>> b****ing about it, file a bug report.
    >>> I did.
    >>>> Or better yet, submit a patch.
    >>> I would if I knew what the problem was.

    >> Did you even try to figure it out? It took me all of 5 minutes to find the mistake.

    >
    > Could I trouble you to share? Then I could continue my testing.


    I posted the patch on the bug tracker:

    http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=729

    >>> I posted it here because someone recommended it.
    >>> I'm simply un-recommending it.

    >> It was a mistake, an easily remedied mistake,

    >
    > But I didn't know that (and still don't).
    >
    >> not a big unchangeable design decision.

    >
    > I didn't know that either. For all I know, I might have to
    > wait for the next version, and who knows when that will be?


    The point is that you didn't try to figure it out. And you assumed the worst
    rather than giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. You didn't even wait to get
    a response from the package maintainer about how serious the issue was before
    you came here to un-recommend it.

    All software has bugs.

    Good software has bugs.

    Finding a single bug in a package is not sufficient cause to warn people away as
    if it had the plague.

    >> If you want to recommend against sympy as a package, there is a larger
    >> burden of proof that you have yet to meet.

    >
    > What kind of burden of proof must one have to recommend it in the
    > first place?


    Significantly less. "It was useful to me," is sufficient.

    --
    Robert Kern

    "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
    that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
    an underlying truth."
    -- Umberto Eco
     
    Robert Kern, Mar 4, 2008
    #8
  9. Mensanator

    Mensanator Guest

    On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:
    > On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:

    >
    > > > On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:

    >
    > > > > Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?

    >
    > > > > import sympy
    > > > > import time
    > > > > import random

    >
    > > > > f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,10000)]

    >
    > > > > for i in xrange(10):
    > > > >   f1 = random.choice(f)
    > > > >   print f1,
    > > > >   f2 = random.choice(f)
    > > > >   print f2,
    > > > >   C = f1*f2
    > > > >   ff = None
    > > > >   ff = sympy.factorint(C)
    > > > >   print ff

    >
    > > > > ##  7307 7243 [(7243, 1), (7307, 1)]
    > > > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > > ##  8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > > ##  8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > > ##  8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > > ##  8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > > ##  4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]

    >
    > > > > As in, "they're NOT random".

    >
    > > > > The random number generator is broken by the sympy.factorint()
    > > > > function.

    >
    > > > > Random.choice() works ok if the factorint() function commented out.

    >
    > > > > ##  6089 1811 None
    > > > > ##  6449 1759 None
    > > > > ##  9923 4639 None
    > > > > ##  4013 4889 None
    > > > > ##  4349 2029 None
    > > > > ##  6703 8677 None
    > > > > ##  1879 1867 None
    > > > > ##  5153 5279 None
    > > > > ##  2011 4937 None
    > > > > ##  7253 5507 None

    >
    > > > > This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules.

    >
    > > > Dude, relax.

    >
    > > > It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
    > > > random number generator.  It would be a simple fix.  Instead of
    > > > b****ing about it, file a bug report.

    >
    > > I did.

    >
    > > > Or better yet, submit a patch.

    >
    > > I would if I knew what the problem was.

    >
    > > I posted it here because someone recommended it.
    > > I'm simply un-recommending it. Those who don't care
    > > needn't pay any attention. Those who do should be
    > > glad that faults are pointed out when found.

    >
    > 1. You can point out the faults of a program without insults and
    > vulgarity


    Did I insult someone?

    And "****" in the context I used it means "messes with".
    Now you know that the writer of that superbowl commercial
    for almonds wanted to say "Robert Goulet fucks with your stuff".
    But, due to censorship, changed it to "messes with".

    >
    > 2. You must be terribly difficult to please if one bug is enough to
    > recommend against a program as "worse than worthless"


    While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
    means "has no value". So, a program that doesn't work would
    generally be "worthless". One that not only doesn't work but
    creates side effects that cause other programs to not work
    (which don't have bugs) would be "worse than worthless".

    I'm not hard to please at all. I'm planning a later report
    where I test sympy's factoring with that of the MIRACL library's
    factor.exe program. It too, has a serious bug (and I'm not
    a good enough C programmer to know how to fix it) but I have
    a Python based workaround even though the MIRACL library
    has no Python interface. But any mention I ever make of this
    program will mention this bug in case anyone wants to use it.

    >
    > 3. You must be terribly naive if you expect a freeware program with a
    > version number of 0.5.12 not to have bugs


    No, but I guess I'm naive thinking that when someone posts a link to
    such a program that he's recommending going and trying it out. That
    is why they're making it available, isn't it? For people to try out
    so they can get free testing? Aren't I doing my part? Should I just
    uninstall it and forget it?

    >
    > Carl Banks
     
    Mensanator, Mar 4, 2008
    #9
  10. Mensanator

    Carl Banks Guest

    On Mar 3, 7:24 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:
    > On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:

    >
    > > > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:

    >
    > > > > On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:

    >
    > > > > > Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?

    >
    > > > > > import sympy
    > > > > > import time
    > > > > > import random

    >
    > > > > > f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,10000)]

    >
    > > > > > for i in xrange(10):
    > > > > > f1 = random.choice(f)
    > > > > > print f1,
    > > > > > f2 = random.choice(f)
    > > > > > print f2,
    > > > > > C = f1*f2
    > > > > > ff = None
    > > > > > ff = sympy.factorint(C)
    > > > > > print ff

    >
    > > > > > ## 7307 7243 [(7243, 1), (7307, 1)]
    > > > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]
    > > > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)]
    > > > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)]

    >
    > > > > > As in, "they're NOT random".

    >
    > > > > > The random number generator is broken by the sympy.factorint()
    > > > > > function.

    >
    > > > > > Random.choice() works ok if the factorint() function commented out.

    >
    > > > > > ## 6089 1811 None
    > > > > > ## 6449 1759 None
    > > > > > ## 9923 4639 None
    > > > > > ## 4013 4889 None
    > > > > > ## 4349 2029 None
    > > > > > ## 6703 8677 None
    > > > > > ## 1879 1867 None
    > > > > > ## 5153 5279 None
    > > > > > ## 2011 4937 None
    > > > > > ## 7253 5507 None

    >
    > > > > > This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules.

    >
    > > > > Dude, relax.

    >
    > > > > It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
    > > > > random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of
    > > > > b****ing about it, file a bug report.

    >
    > > > I did.

    >
    > > > > Or better yet, submit a patch.

    >
    > > > I would if I knew what the problem was.

    >
    > > > I posted it here because someone recommended it.
    > > > I'm simply un-recommending it. Those who don't care
    > > > needn't pay any attention. Those who do should be
    > > > glad that faults are pointed out when found.

    >
    > > 1. You can point out the faults of a program without insults and
    > > vulgarity

    >
    > Did I insult someone?


    Yes, the intelligence of most people here, if you think anyone's going
    to buy your rationalization of your spiteful behavior.

    Four posts is more than enough of you.
    *PLONK*


    Carl Banks
     
    Carl Banks, Mar 4, 2008
    #10
  11. Mensanator

    Robert Kern Guest

    Mensanator wrote:
    > On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:


    >> 3. You must be terribly naive if you expect a freeware program with a
    >> version number of 0.5.12 not to have bugs

    >
    > No, but I guess I'm naive thinking that when someone posts a link to
    > such a program that he's recommending going and trying it out. That
    > is why they're making it available, isn't it? For people to try out
    > so they can get free testing? Aren't I doing my part? Should I just
    > uninstall it and forget it?


    Finding the issue and reporting it to the sympy bug tracker is commendable.

    Coming here and "un-recommending" sympy before the issue was resolved is not.

    --
    Robert Kern

    "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
    that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
    an underlying truth."
    -- Umberto Eco
     
    Robert Kern, Mar 4, 2008
    #11
  12. Mensanator

    Mensanator Guest

    On Mar 3, 6:21 pm, Robert Kern <> wrote:
    > Mensanator wrote:
    > > On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern <> wrote:
    > >> Mensanator wrote:
    > >>> On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:
    > >>>> It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
    > >>>> random number generator.  It would be a simple fix.  Instead of
    > >>>> b****ing about it, file a bug report.  
    > >>> I did.
    > >>>> Or better yet, submit a patch.
    > >>> I would if I knew what the problem was.
    > >> Did you even try to figure it out? It took me all of 5 minutes to find the mistake.

    >
    > > Could I trouble you to share? Then I could continue my testing.

    >
    > I posted the patch on the bug tracker:
    >
    >    http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=729


    Thanks, I think I actually figured out how to use it.

    >
    > >>> I posted it here because someone recommended it.
    > >>> I'm simply un-recommending it.
    > >> It was a mistake, an easily remedied mistake,

    >
    > > But I didn't know that (and still don't).

    >
    > >> not a big unchangeable design decision.

    >
    > > I didn't know that either. For all I know, I might have to
    > > wait for the next version, and who knows when that will be?

    >
    > The point is that you didn't try to figure it out.


    Give me a break, I'm not a developer, just an end user.

    > And you assumed the worst


    Wasn't my assumption correct? That it really was messing
    outside it's domain?

    > rather than giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.


    As in "maybe it only fails for me"? Was I crying that the
    sky was falling?

    > You didn't even wait to get a response from the package
    > maintainer


    I have no experience with those web sites. I think this is
    the first time I was able to successfully report a bug and
    have no clue what the turnaround time is.

    > about how serious the issue was


    The symptom was serious although the fix was simple.

    > before you came here to un-recommend it.


    As an end user, I get most of my information here.
    Since I saw the link to sympy here on this newsgroup,
    I thought it would be irresponsible to file a bug report
    without simultaneously mentioning it here.

    >
    > All software has bugs.
    >
    > Good software has bugs.


    Are bugs off-topic here?

    >
    > Finding a single bug in a package is not sufficient cause to warn people away as
    > if it had the plague.


    It DID have the plague. It affected anything else that tried
    to use random numbers.

    >
    > >> If you want to recommend against sympy as a package, there is a larger
    > >> burden of proof that you have yet to meet.

    >
    > > What kind of burden of proof must one have to recommend it in the
    > > first place?

    >
    > Significantly less. "It was useful to me," is sufficient.


    Really? That's sufficient? Ok, but how is my pointing out a verifyable
    problem that affects the entire system not a sufficient burden of
    proof against recommending the package? Or should I just have worded
    it differently?

    Aren't I at least going to get credit for having found it?

    >
    > --
    > Robert Kern
    >
    > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
    >   that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
    >   an underlying truth."
    >    -- Umberto Eco
     
    Mensanator, Mar 4, 2008
    #12
  13. Mensanator

    Mensanator Guest

    On Mar 3, 6:49 pm, Robert Kern <> wrote:
    > Mensanator wrote:
    > > On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks <> wrote:
    > >> 3. You must be terribly naive if you expect a freeware program with a
    > >> version number of 0.5.12 not to have bugs

    >
    > > No, but I guess I'm naive thinking that when someone posts a link to
    > > such a program that he's recommending going and trying it out. That
    > > is why they're making it available, isn't it? For people to try out
    > > so they can get free testing? Aren't I doing my part? Should I just
    > > uninstall it and forget it?

    >
    > Finding the issue and reporting it to the sympy bug tracker is commendable..
    >
    > Coming here and "un-recommending" sympy before the issue was resolved is not.


    Bad choice of words I guess. I'll try to keep that in mind.

    >
    > --
    > Robert Kern
    >
    > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
    >   that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
    >   an underlying truth."
    >    -- Umberto Eco
     
    Mensanator, Mar 4, 2008
    #13
  14. Mensanator

    Guest

    > All software has bugs.
    > Good software has bugs.

    Therefore, good software is software.

    > This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules.

    What is it still good for?
     
    , Mar 4, 2008
    #14
  15. Mensanator wrote:

    > While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
    > means "has no value". So, a program that doesn't work would
    > generally be "worthless". One that not only doesn't work but
    > creates side effects that cause other programs to not work
    > (which don't have bugs) would be "worse than worthless".


    All programs have bugs, which means that in some circumstances, they
    won't work. Therefore, by your reasoning, all programs are worse than
    useless.

    > I'm not hard to please at all.


    No, of course not, since logically you must think all software is useless.

    --
    Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
    Life is a zoo in a jungle.
    -- Peter de Vries
     
    Erik Max Francis, Mar 4, 2008
    #15
  16. Mensanator

    Mensanator Guest

    On Mar 3, 8:31 pm, wrote:
    > > All software has bugs.
    > > Good software has bugs.

    >
    > Therefore, good software is software.
    >
    > > This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules.

    >
    > What is it still good for?


    Lots. The problem is when the total is less than the sum of the parts.
     
    Mensanator, Mar 4, 2008
    #16
  17. Mensanator

    Mensanator Guest

    On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <> wrote:
    > Mensanator wrote:
    > > While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
    > > means "has no value". So, a program that doesn't work would
    > > generally be "worthless". One that not only doesn't work but
    > > creates side effects that cause other programs to not work
    > > (which don't have bugs) would be "worse than worthless".

    >
    > All programs have bugs, which means that in some circumstances, they
    > won't work.  


    And in such circumstances, would be worthless.

    > Therefore, by your reasoning, all programs are worse than
    > useless.


    That doesn't follow from my reasoning.

    Suppose you downloaded a new calculator program that
    couldn't add properly. That would be useless to you, right?

    But suppose the program contained a virus that erased
    your hard drive. That would be "worse than useless", wouldn't it?

    >
    > > I'm not hard to please at all.

    >
    > No, of course not, since logically you must think all software is useless.


    Somehow, I expected better logic from people who call themselves
    programmers.

    >
    > --
    > Erik Max Francis && &&http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    >   San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
    >    Life is a zoo in a jungle.
    >     -- Peter de Vries
     
    Mensanator, Mar 4, 2008
    #17
  18. Mensanator wrote:

    > On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <> wrote:
    >> Mensanator wrote:
    >>> I'm not hard to please at all.

    >> No, of course not, since logically you must think all software is useless.

    >
    > Somehow, I expected better logic from people who call themselves
    > programmers.


    So you agree with me. Lack of prefection = uselessness. Thanks for
    being honest, whether your realized you defeated your own disclaimer or not.

    --
    Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
    I wonder if heaven got a ghetto
    -- Tupac Shakur
     
    Erik Max Francis, Mar 4, 2008
    #18
  19. Mensanator

    Lie Guest

    On Mar 4, 1:12 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:
    > On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <> wrote:
    >
    > > Mensanator wrote:
    > > > While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
    > > > means "has no value". So, a program that doesn't work would
    > > > generally be "worthless". One that not only doesn't work but
    > > > creates side effects that cause other programs to not work
    > > > (which don't have bugs) would be "worse than worthless".

    >
    > > All programs have bugs, which means that in some circumstances, they
    > > won't work.  

    >
    > And in such circumstances, would be worthless.
    >
    > > Therefore, by your reasoning, all programs are worse than
    > > useless.

    >
    > That doesn't follow from my reasoning.
    >
    > Suppose you downloaded a new calculator program that
    > couldn't add properly. That would be useless to you, right?
    >
    > But suppose the program contained a virus that erased
    > your hard drive. That would be "worse than useless", wouldn't it?
    >
    >
    >
    > > > I'm not hard to please at all.

    >
    > > No, of course not, since logically you must think all software is useless.

    >
    > Somehow, I expected better logic from people who call themselves
    > programmers.


    Mensanator, for alls sake, you've done right by pointing out the bug
    instead of muttering silently in your room, but there is a thing
    called tolerance that you really should learn, it's about tolerating
    and understanding the possibility that other people are humans too and
    humans create mistakes, lots of them in fact and that includes you (if
    you're humans). Along with tolerance should come a better choice of
    wordings, instead of saying "it sucks because it does something
    unexpected and unwanted" and telling everyone not to use it, you could
    just say "it does something unexpected and unwanted" and say that you
    wanted it fixed. It's not that you've done anything wrong, but it's
    about your attitude.
     
    Lie, Mar 4, 2008
    #19
  20. Mensanator

    Guest

    On Mar 4, 10:50 am, Lie <> wrote:
    > On Mar 4, 1:12 pm, Mensanator <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <> wrote:

    >
    > > > Mensanator wrote:
    > > > > While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
    > > > > means "has no value". So, a program that doesn't work would
    > > > > generally be "worthless". One that not only doesn't work but
    > > > > creates side effects that cause other programs to not work
    > > > > (which don't have bugs) would be "worse than worthless".

    >
    > > > All programs have bugs, which means that in some circumstances, they
    > > > won't work.  

    >
    > > And in such circumstances, would be worthless.

    >
    > > > Therefore, by your reasoning, all programs are worse than
    > > > useless.

    >
    > > That doesn't follow from my reasoning.

    >
    > > Suppose you downloaded a new calculator program that
    > > couldn't add properly. That would be useless to you, right?

    >
    > > But suppose the program contained a virus that erased
    > > your hard drive. That would be "worse than useless", wouldn't it?

    >
    > > > > I'm not hard to please at all.

    >
    > > > No, of course not, since logically you must think all software is useless.

    >
    > > Somehow, I expected better logic from people who call themselves
    > > programmers.

    >
    > Mensanator, for alls sake, you've done right by pointing out the bug
    > instead of muttering silently in your room, but there is a thing
    > called tolerance that you really should learn, it's about tolerating
    > and understanding the possibility that other people are humans too and
    > humans create mistakes, lots of them in fact and that includes you (if
    > you're humans). Along with tolerance should come a better choice of
    > wordings, instead of saying "it sucks because it does something
    > unexpected and unwanted" and telling everyone not to use it, you could
    > just say "it does something unexpected and unwanted" and say that you
    > wanted it fixed. It's not that you've done anything wrong, but it's
    > about your attitude.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    All of your statements were true.
    You expressed your emotions, your observations, and desire.
    You corrected statements incorrect that others made earlier.
    Others gave you orders, their observations of your character, and
    expressed their emotions.
    Now keep your noses in the keyboard and simmer down. I won't stand
    for this.
     
    , Mar 4, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dick Moores

    Help with sympy, please

    Dick Moores, Nov 18, 2007, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    658
    Dick Moores
    Nov 19, 2007
  2. Mensanator
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    351
    Terry Reedy
    Sep 22, 2008
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,324
    Mick White
    Apr 19, 2005
  4. Steven D'Aprano

    sympy.nsimplify

    Steven D'Aprano, May 21, 2013, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    77
    Paul Rudin
    May 21, 2013
  5. Surbhi Gupta

    Debug (sympy-Function; lambdify)

    Surbhi Gupta, Oct 11, 2013, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    110
    Marco Buttu
    Oct 11, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page