I played around with the HP Prime emulator today & also tried the Gamma function. For positive numbers everything seems to be OK, but for negative numbers the Prime emulation gives different results compared to my 15C, 15C LE, 34C, 35s & HP49g+ (which all give the same result, e.g. -5.5! => -0.0600; unfortunately I forgot the result of the Prime emulator & my virtual W7 machine is not up at the moment...)

Might there be a problem with the Gamma function of the HP Prime? Or is it only an emulator problem?

Did you look at the help for the function? Graph both Gamma(X) and X! and I think you'll see what is happening. Also compare the graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function to what you see on the calc.

TW

Edited: 21 Aug 2013, 2:54 p.m.

If it's a bug, it must involve a setting of some kind, because after Calculator Clear on the emulator, all four of the following return the same correct result (-.0600196013005) both in Home and in CAS:

(-5.5)! (using the [-] key)

(-5.5)! (using the [+/-] key)

Gamma(-4.5) (using the [-] key)

Gamma(-4.5) (using the [+/-] key)

If you see the bug again, please let us know what your non-default settings are. Thanks!

-Joe-

Thanks, Joe.
I'll have to check that tomorrow.

On the HP-49G+ and on the Prime, Gamma and ! are two different functions. From the manual:

---------------------------------------

Factorial: Factorial of a positive integer. For non-integers, ! = |^-- (x + 1).
This calculates the gamma function.

value!

.

.

.

Gamma(a)

Thus Gamma(-4.5) = (-5.5)! = -0.0600196013005

Gerson.

-----

This was meant to Stephan. Somehow it has ended up here.

Edited: 21 Aug 2013, 3:05 p.m.

Thanks, Gerson.
Actually I know the difference between ! & Gamma. I just was astonished that my Prime emulator gave me some unexpected result, but as Joe proposed I'll check my settings first.

I compared a few negative values (-5.5, -4.5, -3.5, -2.25, -2.45, and -22.45) for the Gamma function using the emulator AND using Wolfram Alpha. I did not see any difference in the results.

Namir

Edited: 21 Aug 2013, 4:53 p.m.

You might also want to check your emulator version:

WolframAlpha disagrees with the precedence of - and !: -5.5! = -287.885....

Cheers

Thomas

Gerson

are you sure about -5.5! ?

I get this for (-5.5)! with my emulator -5.5! -> -287.885...

I checked the thing again this morning & got the incorrect results again:



:-o



Edit: It seems I have problems with the images (if it's not only our proxy server) ...

The values are:

Gamma(-4.5) = -.245736133286

(-5.5)! = -.245736133286



However, after resetting the calculator it shows the correct result:



Thus it might have been some weird settings preventing the calculator to return the correct results:

Gamma(-4.5) = -.0600196013005

(-5.5)! = -.0600196013005

The version of my emulator is:



Version 2013 8 5. Rev: 4980
The emulator tells me that there's no newer version available.



I apologise for all inconveniences...

Thanks for your support!

Edited: 22 Aug 2013, 2:16 a.m.

[img:http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1623/yaui.png]

Cheers

Thomas

I got it !

CAS mode
Set <\ in degree

(-5.5)! = -.245736133286

Rev 4980

Hi Joe

The bug is in CAS mode and ° setting :

Set angle in Radian
CAS mode

(-5.5)! -> -.6...

now set angle in ° (always CAS mode)

(-5.5)! -> -.2457...

(Rev 4980)

Edited: 22 Aug 2013, 3:14 a.m.

The setting (Degree or radian) affects both environments (goto settings in CAS or Home and see they are the same). The error only occurs from the CAS screen, not from the Home screen.

Hello prime researchers,

the gamma function is normally defined for complex numbers except the negative integers. Maybe there is connection between the DEG and RAD mode and the inconsistent results in CAS mode?

Greeting
peacecalc

Quote:

---

More important to get things right, with a smaller subset of functions that are fully tested and well documented, before starting the "lets lump in everyone's favorite function" game...

---

Couldn't agree more.

Cheers

Thomas

Gilles and Thomas,

I did enter (-5.5)!, but the history showed -5.5! (I hadn't noticed that). Looks like we have another bug here:

Cheers,

Gerson.

Good find! This means the formula involving sine is being used for negative arguments. The bug persists on Rev. 5106.

Quote:

---

However, after resetting the calculator it shows the correct result:



Thus it might have been some weird settings preventing the calculator to return the correct results:

Gamma(-4.5) = -.0600196013005

(-5.5)! = -.0600196013005

---

Not your fault, but HP's. They've forgotten to check the user's angle mode setting when evaluating Gamma . See Gilles's post below. You've indeed found a new bug. Thanks for reporting!

Regards,

Gerson.

Quote:

---

This means the formula involving sine is being used for negative arguments.

---

= -0.24573613328569488790394658885834332520579131620384...

Quote:

---

The values are:

Gamma(-4.5) = -.245736133286

---

Gerson, I think you're correct! But then why is -4.5 used instead of 5.5 in sin?

Cheers

Thomas

Edited: 22 Aug 2013, 10:23 a.m.

I tested with XCAS and same problem...

You're welcome. Actually it was by mistake... ;-)

Does anyone know if the bug also occurs on the real Prime or just in the emulator?

Edited: 22 Aug 2013, 11:24 a.m.

Perhaps they're doing

(-z)!(z - 1)! = pi/(sin(pi*z))

z = -4.5

Gamma(-4.5) = (-5.5)! = pi/(sin(-pi*4.5)*4.5!) = -0.0600196013005 

z = -4.5*pi/180

Cheers,

Gerson.

_{Edited to fix a typo.}

Edited: 22 Aug 2013, 2:53 p.m.

Hi,

So, CAS mode does not show the expression the way you entered (CAS mode, Radians):

What is the difference between these two ?

Well, I copy the first one :

Then press [Enter] key:

Then, I copy the second one :

And there you have it. Of course, pressing [Enter] key gives:

Oh, now I see:

Thanks for pointing that out!

Best regards

Thomas

So they look alike, but are actually different :-)
Perhaps more difficult to fix than the other bug, but I think HP should address this one as well. Otherwise screen prints won't be a reliable information anymore.

Regards,

Gerson.

Actually I only intended to write it in an easier-to-remember and less prone to confusion form:

Best regards,

Gerson.

This formula reminds me of Valentin's HP-15C Mini-challenge.