1 | initial version |

We have to inspect further for the reasons of that behaviour. It might "only" be the naiveness of the algorithm, since the matrix `B`

is ill-conditionned: its inverse has a huge norm.

I bet there is something wrong in the formulas, since when i do the computation on certified fields such as `RBF`

and `RIF`

, the correct answer does not belong to the possible values provided by Sage.

Meanwhile, you can always turn your matrix into a dense one by doing:

```
sage: B.dense_matrix()
```

2 | No.2 Revision |

We have to inspect further for the reasons of that behaviour. It might "only" be the naiveness of the algorithm, since the matrix `B`

is ill-conditionned: its inverse has a huge norm.

I bet there is something wrong in the formulas, since when i do the computation on certified fields such as `RBF`

and `RIF`

, the correct answer does not belong to the possible values provided by Sage.

Meanwhile, you can always turn your matrix into a dense one by doing:

```
sage: B.dense_matrix()
```

Thanks for reporting anyway.

3 | No.3 Revision |

We have to inspect further for the reasons of that behaviour. It might "only" be the naiveness of the algorithm, since the matrix `B`

is ill-conditionned: its inverse has a huge norm.

I bet there is something wrong in the formulas, since when i do the computation on certified fields such as `RBF`

and `RIF`

, the correct answer does not belong to the possible values provided by Sage.

Meanwhile, you can always turn your matrix into a dense one by doing:

```
sage: B.dense_matrix()
```

Thanks for reporting anyway.

**EDIT** The culprit is https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24122 if you revert it, you get something close to 1 again.

4 | No.4 Revision |

`B`

is ill-conditionned: its inverse has a huge norm.

`RBF`

and `RIF`

, the correct answer does not belong to the possible values provided by Sage.

Meanwhile, you can always turn your matrix into a dense one by doing:

```
sage: B.dense_matrix()
```

Thanks for reporting anyway.

**EDIT** The culprit ~~is https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24122 ~~seems to be trac ticket 24122 if you revert it, you get something close to 1 again.

This bug is tracked at trac ticket 28402

Copyright Sage, 2010. Some rights reserved under creative commons license. Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.