On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 21:42:01 UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote:
old_RealNumber=RealNumber
def RealNumber(*args,**kwargs):
return QQ(old_RealNumber(*args,**kwargs))
Apologies, typos corrected in code above (note the double star in **kwargs)
--
You received this message because you are
On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 19:47:15 UTC-7 aw wrote:
Here's what users expect when they type an expression into a
higher-precision environment: they expect the answer to be the exact
answer, truncated to the precision of that environment. Period. This is not
negotiable. There is no latitude
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:25:27 PM UTC-6 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 18:20 -0400, David Roe wrote:
My favorite permabug:
sage: A = matrix([[-3, 2, 1 ],
: [ 2,-4, 4 ],
: [ 1, 2,-5 ]])
sage: B = (2 * 0.5 * A)
sage: B == A
True
sage: B.rank() == A.rank()
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 9:12:09 PM UTC-6 Nils Bruin wrote:
The design decision here to let the multiplication of a "RealLiteral" by a
sage integer result in a "RealNumber" is because your use of RealLiteral
was taken to signal intent to use floats over exact types. If you wanted
exact
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:44:56 PM UTC-6 Nils Bruin wrote:
On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 14:31:43 UTC-7 aw wrote:
Awesome, let's talk about floating point semantics. [...]
We zero-pad the 1.1 to whatever length is needed to match the other number.
Because we see 1.1 as a shorthand for
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:56:05 PM UTC-6 Edgar Costa wrote:
Wolfram Alpha also has beginners and students as a big chunk of its user
base, and they get the default semantics exactly right.
Do they?
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=100+digits+of+e%5E1.1
>
> It's reasonable to expect that multiplying by one won't cause a viable
> alternative to Mathematica et al. to go bonkers. I haven't declared a
> float variable, and I haven't type-cast anything to float. The
> expression "0.5" is, a priori, quite equal to 1/2. Mathematica knows
> it
>
I
On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 14:31:43 UTC-7 aw wrote:
Awesome, let's talk about floating point semantics. [...]
We zero-pad the 1.1 to whatever length is needed to match the other number.
Because we see 1.1 as a shorthand for 1.1 (infinitely many
zeros)
That's the
Awesome, let's talk about floating point semantics.
There are two main kinds, that I can see.
One is "ordinary person" semantics, the other is IEEE-like semantics.
Ordinary-person semantics is what you learned in grade school.
In grade school, suppose we want to add 1.1 to 2.8324, using pencil
Your C++ compiler (gcc (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.1) 9.4.0, released
in 2019, that's before scipy 1.9.3) crashes while compiling some files
in scipy.
Could you perhaps try a newer gcc version?
https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/gcc-10
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 9:01 PM Khai Dong wrote:
>
> Hello,
>From the log:
g++
-Iscipy/sparse/sparsetools/_sparsetools.cpython-38-x86_64-linux-gnu.so.p
-Iscipy/sparse/sparsetools -I../../scipy/sparse/sparsetools
-I/home/arucane/sage/sage-9.8/local/var/lib/sage/venv-python3.8/lib/python3.8/site-packages/numpy/core/include
-I/usr/include/python3.8
On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 04:40:50 UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
It's reasonable to expect that multiplying by one won't cause a viable
alternative to Mathematica et al. to go bonkers. I haven't declared a
float variable, and I haven't type-cast anything to float. The
expression "0.5" is, a
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 at 15:52, Trevor Karn wrote:
>
> I don't have much understanding of how floating point arithmetic works, but
> the argument
>
> >If you're writing python code, you should expect 2*0.5 to return a
> >float. But if you're learning linear algebra for the first time and
> >typing
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023, 15:52 Trevor Karn, wrote:
> I don't have much understanding of how floating point arithmetic works,
> but the argument
>
> >If you're writing python code, you should expect 2*0.5 to return a
> >float. But if you're learning linear algebra for the first time and
> >typing a
I don't have much understanding of how floating point arithmetic works, but
the argument
>If you're writing python code, you should expect 2*0.5 to return a
>float. But if you're learning linear algebra for the first time and
>typing a matrix into the Sage notebook, typing 0.5 instead of 1/2
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 12:25 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 18:20 -0400, David Roe wrote:
> > I agree with William that you should refrain from insulting the Sage
> > developers, especially when the underlying problem comes from your
> > misunderstanding of how floating
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 12:40 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 19:11 -0700, Nils Bruin wrote:
> >
> > I fail to see what the reasonable expectations are here. As soon as you
> > multiply by "0.5" you now have an "imprecise" result. When people learn to
> > use a scientific
On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 19:11 -0700, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> I fail to see what the reasonable expectations are here. As soon as you
> multiply by "0.5" you now have an "imprecise" result. When people learn to
> use a scientific calculator properly they are very quickly confronted with
> the
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:25 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> sage: A = matrix([[-3, 2, 1 ],
> : [ 2,-4, 4 ],
> : [ 1, 2,-5 ]])
> sage: B = (2 * 0.5 * A)
> sage: B == A
> True
> sage: B.rank() == A.rank()
> False
>
Doesn't this complicates citing
19 matches
Mail list logo
