@halirutan now all 4

Do you typically specidy the # of Threads = # of processors?

@brama Yes, this should be OK.

ok

@halirutan I need to go now..Kids creating havoc at home..SOS from wify!!

@halirutan will implement what I learnt and keep you updated..

@halirutan Thank you for helping me understand!!

@ Mr.Wizard and @halirutan Good bye and catch you guys later!!

@brama Yep. 2:05 here, kids already sleeping :-) Have fun.

@halirutan good for you..it's 8:06 here and need to put them to bed!!

@halirutan bye

Has someone else the impression that AbsoluteOptions with graphics has become the most unreliable thing over the time?

I mean now, we cannot even extract absolute Ticks???

p = Plot[x, {x, 1, 3}, Ticks -> {{1, 2}, {1, 2, 3}}];
AbsoluteOptions[p, Ticks]

@Öskå I reported this bug to Wolfram and gave every, but really every detail I knew about it. After several mails I got this:

> I have forwarded your question to the developer, but we could not reproduce the same issue. Could you please uninstall Mathematica 10 completely (support.wolfram.com/kb/12473) and reinstall it and see if the issue persists?

ermmm, the extra bytes bug? I have v8, I've installed it many times, and I still have it..

Or maybe they are joking? :D

@Öskå That's what I write them know too. As long as they don't connect me to a read developer and I always have to write with the support as middle man, I don't think we can track this down.

@Öskå Would you consider writing a bug-report yourself?

So they see that it's not only me having the issue.

:17163465 Hehe.. you shouldn't I pay enough for both of us :-)

@Öskå OK, I understand this. No problem.

@halirutan As you know it's 300€.., I would rather like having a job before spending this amount of money. (and right now I'm still unemployed :()

Unless you really pay enough for both of us :P

meh, too late to remove that line :P

@Öskå OK. I just replied them and I gave some more information. Let's see what they do with it.

@halirutan Keep me updated, but it's not the first bug report that you submitted about this issue right?

@Öskå Yes, it is the first report. Until the issue appeared in Chrome I thought it is a java bug.

@halirutan Write back to them: "But that link describes how to uninstall the Wolfram System! I only have Mathematica!!!! What should I do?!?!?!"

Or something like that.

@acl too late. next time ;-)

Hey all, I have a rather technical question regarding an NDSolve method, and I feel like probably only the Mathematica team itself can answer it

I'm not sure if it's worth posting it as a question to the exchange

Or if I should just try direct contact (which I don't know how to initiate)

@Guillochon You can get a contact form pre-filled with your license number by going to Help -> Give Feedback in MMA. Then you can change the topic. It is worth posting here if it can be answered at all, but if it's something along the line of "what algorithm is used in the code that no end users have access to" then it will probably be closed. You can also try Wolfram Community where there are more WRI employees.

@Pickett OK, thanks! I think it could fall into the unanswerable category.

I'm really pissed off with Workbench and MUnit: community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/321136?p_p_auth=4xjAk1jY

If even the bloody testing framework is broken, how can we expect Mathematica itself not to be very buggy?

@halirutan I think for the moment don't bother adding MUnit to the IDEA plugin.

@Szabolcs strange, you'd have thought they'd have used it internally...

@acl They did, that's why there are so many bugs they didn't catch :)

@Pickett that's certainly a self-consistent picture

Yep :D

@Szabolcs Hellooo?? But now you can access your FACEBOOK FRIENDS! Isn't that worth something?

:-)

@acl I would be really, I mean really really, surprised if someone at WRI is using their testing framework. Do you really think that with reliable unit tests for all features, something like this wouldn't raise some alerts:

This is what unit testing is for. To ensure that the stuff you have implemented doesn't stop working silently after you hacked at some other code.

@halirutan oh yeah. Here's what I got:

I was trying to make final plots for a paper the last few days and noticed this too.

@acl Yep. I find it very interesting that they seem to have changed possible values for Axes without adapting some messages. Again, wouldn't happen with unit tests.

@halirutan Nevertheless, particularly after all the testing that has been done on it, the probability that you will actually discover an error in the Wolfram System in the course of your work is extremely low.

@halirutan @Szabolcs looks like we're really lucky, then

@acl Extremely-one-in-a-million-post-it-to-your-facebook-wall-lucky!

> Doubtless there will be times when the Wolfram System does things you do not expect. But you should realize that the probabilities are such that it is vastly more likely that there is something wrong with your input to the Wolfram System or your understanding of what is happening than with the internal code of the Wolfram System itself.

In other words, "Check your stupid code or stop being a n00b"

Today seems to be sarcasm-day.

> Since the beginning of its development in 1986, the effort spent directly on creating the source code for the Wolfram System is about a thousand developer-years. In addition, a comparable or somewhat larger effort has been spent on testing and verification.

from here

@acl If only they put in 1/10th of that time into fixing bugs, it'd be a much better product.

@rm-rf Maybe it has something to do with the 1000 lines of C code/day?

anyway, this is too easy. not fun.

These are merely "vanity numbers" — looks impressive to the newcomer, but doesn't convey any useful information to the experienced. Just like the reputation count on SE...

Maybe mma should've been written in Java... ;)

@rm-rf well in any case, mma is such a ridiculously huge system and it evolves so rapidly that I am not surprised at this. Although some of the bugs are so easy to hit that it makes me wonder.

Project Euler will is back