I was going to ask for a Trac login and find out how to review patches, but I just noticed that more qualified people than me have taken care of it - and encountered other problems. Pity. Thanks a lot for pushing it a bit further!
Stan On Nov 20, 11:03 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 20, 2008, at 1:54 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote: > > > Thanks a lot for that, Robert! > > Seehttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4572Do you want to > review it? > > > Is the ultimate "fix" the one that will > > use pynac instead of maxima? I can't wait for this one. > > Yep, though we won't be replacing all of maxima's functionality any > time soon. > > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
