# Revision history [back]

AFAIK, scipy calls a Fortran numerical routine to compute this. Naturally, it doesn't do arbitrary precision. The relative precision is probably still quite OK, I didn't check. If you try adding optional parameter prec, with prec not equal to 53, you get an error.

Not sure whether this is an acceptable solution, but perhaps Sage should return the result as RDF, not as an arbitrary precision real.

AFAIK, scipy calls a Fortran numerical routine to compute this. Naturally, it doesn't do arbitrary precision. The relative precision is probably still quite OK, I didn't check. If you try adding optional parameter prec, with prec not equal to 53, you get an error.

Not sure whether this is an acceptable solution, but perhaps Sage should return the result as RDF, not as an arbitrary precision real.

One might also just call hypergeometric instead. This will use Maxima (Maxima doesn't know this particular function, but it can do qFp, and this is precisely what is needed here). E.g. round(hypergeometric((-18,-19),(),1).n(100)) gives the correct 19th term of the sequence in question.

AFAIK, scipy calls a Fortran numerical routine to compute this. Naturally, it doesn't do arbitrary precision. The relative precision is probably still quite OK, I didn't check. If you try adding optional parameter prec, with prec not equal to 53, you get an error.

Not sure whether this is an acceptable solution, but perhaps Sage should return the result as RDF, not as an arbitrary precision real. (EDIT: this is now http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17011)

One might also just call hypergeometric instead. This will use Maxima (Maxima doesn't know this particular function, but it can do qFp, and this is precisely what is needed here). E.g. round(hypergeometric((-18,-19),(),1).n(100)) gives the correct 19th term of the sequence in question.