fixing documentation

[Zaneham]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated accuracy documentation for Bessel functions, confirming SLATEC implementations are verified correct for large arguments.
  • Clarified that earlier incorrect reference values have been corrected.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The DEVIATIONS.md file is updated to replace a documented section on critical algorithmic accuracy failures in Bessel functions with verification data. The new content confirms SLATEC's Bessel implementations are correct through comparison with mpmath values across multiple test cases.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation Update DEVIATIONS.md	Replaces "CRITICAL: Algorithmic Accuracy Failures" section with "Large Argument Bessel Functions - Verified Correct"; removes detailed failure narratives, NIST references, and root-cause analysis; introduces verification table comparing SLATEC to mpmath results for J_0(500), J_0(1000), J_9(20), Y_0(50), Y_0(100); consolidates deprecation sections into single verification note.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes

Poem

🐰 A correction, so clear and so bright,
Bessel functions verified right,
Where once stood failures deep,
Now accurate values we keep,
Mpmath and SLATEC in perfect light! ✨

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}