On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Samuel Lelievre <samuel.lelie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2015-09-26 09:53:38 UTC+2, Ralf Stephan: >>> >>> The question is if we should call it is(). >> >> >> Impossible because it is a Python keyword. >> So, lacking a better proposal I'll stick to holds() > > > What about the following, where ex is a symbolic > equality or inequality: > > ex.can_hold() > whether there are values of the variables for which ex holds > > ex.always_holds() > whether ex holds for all values of the variables
Possibly tongue-in-cheek: ex.obviously_holds() ex.trivially_holds() ex.clearly_holds() ex.holds_trivially() but that is the sort of (possibly annoying) terminology mathematicians typically use to distinguish between "easy to prove is 0 if possible" and "prove is 0 or die trying!" William > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- William (http://wstein.org) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.