Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

poor documentation of elliptic integrals in functions/special.py #12596

Closed
dkrenn opened this issue Feb 26, 2012 · 14 comments
Closed

poor documentation of elliptic integrals in functions/special.py #12596

dkrenn opened this issue Feb 26, 2012 · 14 comments

Comments

@dkrenn
Copy link
Contributor

dkrenn commented Feb 26, 2012

try typing elliptic_pi?, the documentation gives you absolutely no clue as to which argument corresponds to phi, n, or m.

This was reported on the public bug reports from the notebook interface by willy@willyshop.com on 2/13/2012.


Apply attachment: trac_12596.3.patch to Sage library

Component: documentation

Author: Benjamin Jones

Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman, Jeroen Demeyer

Merged: sage-5.0.beta14

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12596

@kcrisman
Copy link
Member

comment:1

This is more or less true for all of those. We could do a better job of making these symbolic as well.

@kcrisman kcrisman changed the title poor documentation of elliptic_pi poor documentation of elliptic integrals in functions/special.py Feb 27, 2012
@benjaminfjones
Copy link
Contributor

Author: Benjamin Jones

@benjaminfjones

This comment has been minimized.

@kcrisman
Copy link
Member

comment:3

Good idea. A few minor things.

  • Trivial typo of definition
    • Needs to escape the underscore in the elliptic_pi since otherwise there are horrible LaTeX warnings.
    • I'm not sure how we should deal with the \phi as a variable, since of course variables don't start with slashes, but in the formula it would need one. Maybe just phi? I'm not sure what's ideal.
    • Just having a reference for all of these many things would be nice, but at least on this ticket, since Wikipedia's defn. is a little different and I'm too lazy to look it up in a real reference

@kcrisman
Copy link
Member

Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman

@benjaminfjones
Copy link
Contributor

comment:4

Thanks for looking at it, Karl-Dieter. I think I've fixed the issues you pointed out. I agree, references are good. [AS] section 17.7 follows a slightly different convention with the parameters than Maxima, but the Maxima docs refer to it and point out the difference in notation. I've changed the variable "phi" to "t" to eliminate inconsistency between "\phi" and "phi".

@jdemeyer
Copy link

jdemeyer commented Apr 5, 2012

comment:5

The HTML documentation doesn't actually build:

writing output... [ 40%] sage/functions/generalized
writing output... [ 40%] sage/functions/hyperbolic
writing output... [ 40%] sage/functions/log
writing output... [ 40%] sage/functions/orthogonal_polys
writing output... [ 41%] sage/functions/other
writing output... [ 41%] sage/functions/piecewise
writing output... [ 41%] sage/functions/prime_pi
writing output... [ 41%] sage/functions/special
WARNING: inline latex u'\\text{elliptic_pi}(n, \\phi, m) = \\int_0^\\phi \\frac{dx}{(1 - n \\sin(x)^2)\\sqrt{1 -\nm \\sin(x)^2}}.': latex
exited with error:
[...]
! Missing $ inserted.
<inserted text>
                $
l.33 \end{gather}

! Extra }, or forgotten $.
\textdef@ ...th {#1}\let \f@size #2\selectfont #3}
                                                  }
l.33 \end{gather}
[...goes on a long time...]

@benjaminfjones

This comment has been minimized.

@benjaminfjones
Copy link
Contributor

comment:7

Replying to @jdemeyer:

The HTML documentation doesn't actually build:

That's a problem with the previous patch. Sorry, I forgot to update the ticket description to indicate the new patch. It's changed now.

@benjaminfjones
Copy link
Contributor

Attachment: trac_12596.3.patch.gz

removed trailing whitespace

@benjaminfjones

This comment has been minimized.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

jdemeyer commented Apr 7, 2012

Changed reviewer from Karl-Dieter Crisman to Karl-Dieter Crisman, Jeroen Demeyer

@jdemeyer
Copy link

jdemeyer commented Apr 7, 2012

comment:9

The formatting of the documentation is good now and the result looks good.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

Merged: sage-5.0.beta14

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants