Chris Seberino wrote: > > > On Mar 27, 6:04 am, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Maybe one >> (you? :) ) can implement a catch... > > At first I was interested in this change but now I'm wondering if it > is best the way it is now. > > f(x) = .... defines a symbolic object as was previously mentioned. A > symbolic object is for analytical results. > > It doesn't seem like it would make sense to add any approximation > relationed functions like n(..) or numerical_integral(..) to a > symbolic object. > > On the other hand,....some may argue that it is best to let the Sage > user have the freedom to add anything he/she wants to a "symbolic" > function. > > I'm curious what others think. >
We already have plenty of approximation functions attached to the symbolic functions. I think it's extremely valuable. For example, it's very handy for plotting things. sage: sin(1) sin(1) sage: sin(1).numerical_approx() 0.841470984807897 In fact, the first thing n() tries is the numerical_approx() method of the object. I think all we have to do is define an integral.numerical_approx() function that returns the results of numerical_integral() Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
