The auto-update should be easy to implement. However, now that I've looked into error propagation, an interval seems like a very wrong way to represent uncertainty in physical measurements (apparently Mathematica does *not* do this; I don't know why I thought that). So the only alternative I see is to just have the nominal value, which is not ideal. I'll see how difficult it is to implement the error propagation; for now the only problems seem to be finding correlation between variables (otherwise you get strange things like x-x!=0, when x is a number with uncertainty).
@Keshav Kini Not exactly. Although it is a probability distribution, the bounds *are*strict; one standard deviation (at least in the case of the NIST constants). The way operations are handled is just different; see http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Analytical_Chemistry/Quantifying_Nature/Propagation_of_Error . -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
