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.

Reply via email to