MathGroup Archive 2009

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Help with a possible bug

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg99034] Re: Help with a possible bug
  • From: Arnoud Buzing <arnoudb at>
  • Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <>

The issue discussed in this thread has been analyzed and fixed by our development team.

A kernel binary for all affected platforms is currently being tested.

The issue occurs for a somewhat rare class of inputs in Mathematica version 7.0.1 (not 7.0.0).

Users affected by this problem can request a patch by emailing support at

We apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused.

Arnoud Buzing
arnoudb at
Quality Assurance Manager
Wolfram Research 

M8R-lj1smh at wrote:
> At work we seem to have stumbled on a strange bug between Table and
> Part.  We can reproduce the bug on differently configured Mac and
> Linux boxes.  I tried Wolfram support, but they claim they cannot
> reproduce the bug.  So I was hoping someone could try it out and
> report their results.    Thanks in advance to all volunteers.
> For us, the bug is new in 7.0.1. It does not show up in version 6.
> To reproduce it, fill up a 17 x 267 matrix with 3s.  Compute the sum
> of some of the columns and you get the result 51 (17 x 3).  But if one
> computes the sum for the last few columns, the result is completely
> off.  The bug seems to arise from the interaction of optimizations  in
> Table and the use of All inside of Part.
> ------------  code
>   mat = Table[3, {i, 1, 17}, {j, 1, 267}];
>   sum = Table[Total[mat[[All, j]]], {j, 1, 249}]
>   sum1 = Table[Total[mat[[All, j]]], {j, 1, 252}];
>   sum2 = Table[Total[mat[[All, j]]], {j, 1, 252}]
> ------------  end code
> If you look at sum1, it will be correct on a fresh copy of the
> Kernel.  The problem only arise from the second time on.
> Thanks,
> Papin
> Email: ImportString["cGFwaW5AY294Lm5ldA==", "Base64"]

  • Prev by Date: Mathematica JLink and comm.javax.CommPortIdentifier
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: pure function with optional number of arguments
  • Previous by thread: Help with a possible bug
  • Next by thread: Re: Help with a possible bug