On May 31, 3:59 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, there is a natural homomorphism from > RR to the symbolic ring.
Hm, if this is the precondition then the coercion of say RealField(52) to RealField(2) is not valid, because it is no homomorphism at all. For example let R2 = RealField(2), then not R2(2.4+1.2)==R2(2.4)+R2(1.2) Wouldnt it then be more consistent coerce RealFields to higher precision? There really a homomorphism exists. Then there always would be a (desirable) difference between rounding and coercing. Rounding has to be explicit while coercing is automatic. Of course at this stage I also have to point out that the so called RealField is no field at all: not R2(3)+R2(2)-R2(2) == R2(3) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
