Thanks a lot for that, Robert! Is the ultimate "fix" the one that will
use pynac instead of maxima? I can't wait for this one.
All the best,
Stan
On Nov 19, 6:46 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
