William wrote: > From an implementation point of view, given the SAGE rules, > it makes way more sense for 2.5*sin(1) to remain symbolic, > since: > (1) this is what the backend simplification system (maxima) does, > and > (2) 2.5 * sin(1) in SAGE is computed by making "2.5" symbolic, > then doing the multiply formally. > > I'm not saying we shouldn't find a way to make 2.5 * sin(1) possibly > be numerical. I'm just remarking that this is a complicated issue > and it definitely deserves further discussion.
I too noticed that for the kind of work high school students do, and also the kind of work technical students do in general, obtaining numerical approximates of symbolic expressions occurs very frequently. What I liked about Mathematica is that it made it very easy to obtain numerical approximates of symbolic expressions. For example, it seemed to me that the N[] function's name was shortened to just N to make it easy to type and the //N syntax placed after any expression would return its numerical approximate. I must admit, I also use to force Mathematica to return numerical results by placing .0 after one of the numbers in an expression, but this technique always had a hacked feeling to me. When I discovered the //N technique, I used it most of the time and was very happy with it. In SAGE, I have ended up using the numerical_approx() method as an equivalent to N[] and //N in Mathematica, but I have found it not to be as quick and easy to use. Ted --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
