Hi David,
Thanks for the clarification. If this is the only reason, I would really
prefer a more subtle reminder. Or maybe a command that tells me the
precision of my computation when I ask for it?
Cheers
Stan
davidloeffler wrote:
>
>> Could someone point me to a reason why anything should
> Could someone point me to a reason why anything should be printed as
> 1.*var?
To remind you that the computation you're doing is only correct to 8
decimal places? If you want exact computations you shouldn't be using
the real field as base.
David
--~--~-~--~~
Dear all,
I'm not a mathematician, so I am probably asking a very naive question here:
Could someone point me to a reason why anything should be printed as
1.*var? Those factors of 1.000 that turn up in otherwise
pretty equations are among the most annoying 'features' to me. I woul
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
> Please do not make the above change. It would be very inconsistent
> with what happens for symbolic variables:
>
> sage: var('x,y,z,w')
> sage: f = 1.0*x^2 - 1.0*y
> sage: f.variables()
> (x, y)
I'm not sure symbolic variables are consi
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 18 Jul., 05:14, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> ...
>> I'd like the second example to look more like the first and it's
>> pretty easy to make that happen. However, this means:
>>
>> {{{
>> sage: x
>> 1.00*x
>> sage: y
>> 1.0
Hi!
On 18 Jul., 05:14, Alex Ghitza wrote:
...
> I'd like the second example to look more like the first and it's
> pretty easy to make that happen. However, this means:
>
> {{{
> sage: x
> 1.00*x
> sage: y
> 1.00*y
> sage: (x^2 - y).variables()
> [1.00*x, 1.0
I'm not sure what the right plan for variables is, but if you're rewriting
polynomial printing, take a look at sage/rings/padics/padic_printing.pyx. I
think that having a "printer object" attached to a parent, allowing for a
different inheritance tree for the printing objects and more flexibility
