On 2017-05-09 10:30, Marc Mezzarobba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thierry wrote:
>> I opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22960 but i am not sure
>> whether RLF should stop claiming it is exact or whether we should
>> forbid things like RLF(0.1), what do you think (the first is easier to
>> implement) ?
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 10:30:26AM +0200, Marc Mezzarobba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thierry wrote:
> > I opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22960 but i am not sure
> > whether RLF should stop claiming it is exact or whether we should
> > forbid things like RLF(0.1), what do you think (the first is
Hi,
Thierry wrote:
> I opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22960 but i am not sure
> whether RLF should stop claiming it is exact or whether we should
> forbid things like RLF(0.1), what do you think (the first is easier to
> implement) ?
The latter option sounds better to me. A third way
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 07:42:43PM +, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2017-05-08, Thierry wrote:
> > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:01:20PM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
> > The behaviour of this example comes from the fact that at this point 0.1
> > is still a
Hi!
On 2017-05-08, Thierry wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:01:20PM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
> The behaviour of this example comes from the fact that at this point 0.1
> is still a RealLiteral (hence kind of exact until it gets a precision),
Is it? I
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:01:20PM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
> The lazy fields are not just wrappers around self._value:
>
> sage: a = RLF(0.1)
> sage: RealIntervalField(150)(a)
> 0.10?
> sage: RealIntervalField(150)(a._value)
>
The lazy fields are not just wrappers around self._value:
sage: a = RLF(0.1)
sage: RealIntervalField(150)(a)
0.10?
sage: RealIntervalField(150)(a._value)
0.1555111512312578270211815834046?
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 8:50:48 PM UTC+2,