On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Will the fix of the interaction with Maxima allow conservation of
> precision of arguments passed through Maxima? This would satisfy my
> needs.
Actually, the "fix" is avoiding Maxima for everything symbolic.
> Depending on how long this is going to take, I would like Mike's
> interim fix to be implemented. It doesn't make anything worse compared
> with the current state, as currently latexification gives a false
> sense
> of precision, anyway. This does certainly not fit my definition of
> usefulness. We would just have to make sure that the interim fix is
> removed again when the maxima interaction is fixed.
The problem with Mike's fix is that it affects *all* real numbers,
not just ones in Maxima expressions. I would be OK with a fix that
just impacts symbolic object's latex (and even string)
representation. I'll implement this and see if it gets a positive
review.
- Robert
>
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ah, I see:
>>>
>>> dummy1 = RealField(8)(0.1);dummy1
>>> 0.10
>>>
>>> dummy2 = RealField(16)(0.1);dummy2
>>> 0.1000
>>>
>>> latex(x*dummy1)
>>> {0.1001 x}
>>>
>>> latex(x*dummy2)
>>> {0.1 x}
>>>
>>> This is not quite what one would expect. However, the behaviour
>>> before
>>> the fix was not much better in my opinion, as the precision was not
>>> obvious from the latex output, either:
>>>
>>> sage: dummy1 = RealField(8)(0.1);dummy1
>>> 0.10
>>> sage: dummy2 = RealField(16)(0.1);dummy2
>>> 0.1000
>>> sage: latex(x*dummy1)
>>> {0.100100000000000 x}
>>> sage: latex(x*dummy2)
>>> {0.100000000000000 x}
>>>
>>> Obviously, the fix does not fix all the problems, but it does make
>>> latex output much more useful. Would you agree?
>>>
>>
>> That depends on your definition of useful. Personally, I think it's
>> useful to see how many digits of precision a given number has, and
>> for most things it works fine.
>>
>> The issue here is the interaction with Maxima, which is being fixed.
>> Making it so any latexification of all real numbers is truncated is
>> (IMHO) not the right fix because one component abuses precisions.
>>
>> - Robert
>>
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
