Hello, > > If not ==, what would you propose for creating symbolic expression > > objects? The other obvious choice is eq(f, g), but I think that this > > is inferior since it is much harder to guess. > > How often does one need an equation *outside solve*? I never did! > So, if one really wants an equation as an object, why not eq(f,g)? > > And if one wants to use solve, why not in that way: > sage: solve(x^2,'=',2,x) # solves x^2=2 > sage: solve(x^2,'<',2,x) # solves x^2<2
well, inequalities would also have this kind of confusion (as Simon described in the first mail).. http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/t/dc9a94da8d930999 so probably more general markup way should be found for symbolic equations/inequalities or left as it is maybe some `==, `<, `> notation or other symbol instead of '== '< '> _== _< _> ' would make most sense in symbolic stuff as it is usually used with "symbols" :), but don't know if interpreter won't get confused ps: can SAGE solve inequality (as the one here) http://www.sagemath.org/doc/html/ref/module-sage.calculus.wester.html sais NO (what is so difficult about inequalities - at least the school level ones) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
