>I changed the code to return an exception if the truth value is unknown
and ran `sage -testall`.
Did you upload the patch to somewhere? Where this change has to be made?
> I might be willing to fix these tests when I have time.
It seems that nothing happens for more than a year,
so maybe som
I changed the code to return an exception if the truth value is unknown and
ran `sage -testall`. Here are the results:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/tensor/differential_form_element.py # 43 doctests
failed
sage -t devel/sage/sage/tensor/differential_forms.py # 1 doctest failed
I am not against the exception.
The question is what quantifiers we use for variables, isn't it? Antoher
approach would be to implement it such that the quatifier is always
"forall" for all variables in the expression, i.e. it only returns True if
for all possible values of x, y, .. it is Tru
On 01/08/2013 20:03, Eviatar wrote:
Maxima does have an unknown answer for comparisons. I'm in favour of the
exception.
On Wednesday, 9 April 2008 19:18:48 UTC-7, Carl Witty wrote:
I'd like to reopen discussion of #2781, "bool() for SymbolicEquation
should raise an error when it doesn't
I tend to be in favor of the True/False/raise Exception model for testing
equality, but has anybody looked into what would be involved to transition
the Sage ilbrary? I imagine we would have to adapt a lot of code.
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:33:30 AM UTC-4, kro...@uni-math.gwdg.de wrote:
Dear Eviatar,
could you provide some arguments for your choice?
By the way, 'Unknown' is not usable for fixing this issue, because a
value, that is neither True nor False should not be convertible to a
boolean or integer or whatever is accepted by the 'if'-statement, but
'if' seems to accept Unk
Maxima does have an unknown answer for comparisons. I'm in favour of the
exception.
On Wednesday, 9 April 2008 19:18:48 UTC-7, Carl Witty wrote:
>
> I'd like to reopen discussion of #2781, "bool() for SymbolicEquation
> should raise an error when it doesn't know the answer". Jason created
> a
+1 to the exception.
With respect to "pythonism", I would say that this is more pythonic than
creating a 3-state boolean type.
And I would like to raise attention this current, related sage-support
discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-support/JOA8JqgXJQA
--
You received th
Am Sonntag, 13. April 2008 02:39:24 UTC+2 schrieb William Stein:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 12, 8:58 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> > > Carl Witty wrote:
> > > > On Apr 10, 1:41 am, Simon King wrote:
> > > >> On Apr 10, 4:18 am, Carl Witty wrote:
> > >
>
+1 for Carl's proposal with the addition that it should mention the
"unevaluated if" functionality if/when it becomes available in sage
(heck, maybe it should just point to the relevant threads or trac
tickets in the interim...)
On Apr 12, 7:33 pm, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 1
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 12, 8:58 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Carl Witty wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 1:41 am, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> On Apr 10, 4:18 am, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
On Apr 12, 8:58 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Carl Witty wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 1:41 am, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 4:18 am, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> I like the "raise an exception" behavior, because it would eliminate
> >>> questions a
Carl Witty wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:41 am, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 4:18 am, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I like the "raise an exception" behavior, because it would eliminate
>>> questions asking why form1 and form2 below are different (from this
>>> sage-su
On Apr 10, 1:41 am, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:18 am, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I like the "raise an exception" behavior, because it would eliminate
> > questions asking why form1 and form2 below are different (from this
> > sage-support
> > threadhttp:
On Apr 10, 4:18 am, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the "raise an exception" behavior, because it would eliminate
> questions asking why form1 and form2 below are different (from this
> sage-support
> threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/79d0...).
On Apr 9, 8:16 pm, "didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to reopen discussion of #2781, "bool() for SymbolicEquation
> > should raise an error when it doesn't know the answer". Jason created
> > a p
Since x>=0 returns unevaluated, the problem seems like it is with the
if statement, which is turning "maybe" into false. In Mathematica, the
if statement would return unevaluated (for symbolic input into g).
On Apr 9, 9:18 pm, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to reopen discussion
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd like to reopen discussion of #2781, "bool() for SymbolicEquation
> should raise an error when it doesn't know the answer". Jason created
> a prototype patch to implement this, but gave up on it and closed the
> tic
18 matches
Mail list logo
