On May 7, 9:24 pm, John Cremona wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to explain, Jason.
>
> 2009/5/7 Jason Grout :
>
>
>
>
>
> > John Cremona wrote:
> >> 2009/5/7 Nick Alexander :
> sage:RIF( 3 , 3.2 )
> 4.±1
> >>> -2 to unicode or whatever lets you type $\pm$.
>
> >>> As for the fact
Thanks for taking the time to explain, Jason.
2009/5/7 Jason Grout :
>
> John Cremona wrote:
>> 2009/5/7 Nick Alexander :
sage:RIF( 3 , 3.2 )
4.±1
>>> -2 to unicode or whatever lets you type $\pm$.
>>>
>>> As for the fact that 4.? is confusing to people who know nothing about
>>> sage,
John Cremona wrote:
> 2009/5/7 Nick Alexander :
>>> sage:RIF( 3 , 3.2 )
>>> 4.±1
>> -2 to unicode or whatever lets you type $\pm$.
>>
>> As for the fact that 4.? is confusing to people who know nothing about
>> sage, that does not concern me in the slightest. I find lots of
>> things that I know
2009/5/7 Nick Alexander :
>
>> sage:RIF( 3 , 3.2 )
>> 4.±1
>
> -2 to unicode or whatever lets you type $\pm$.
>
> As for the fact that 4.? is confusing to people who know nothing about
> sage, that does not concern me in the slightest. I find lots of
> things that I know nothing about confusing!
> sage:RIF( 3 , 3.2 )
> 4.±1
-2 to unicode or whatever lets you type $\pm$.
As for the fact that 4.? is confusing to people who know nothing about
sage, that does not concern me in the slightest. I find lots of
things that I know nothing about confusing!
Nick
--~--~-~--~~--
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Yann wrote:
>
> On May 7, 3:38 am, Nick Alexander wrote:
>> > 1.234567?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> > 1.234567?1 is more
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Nick
>
> +1 on this example...
> I don't want to look stubborn but let's try another vote (it´s my last
> comment on this thread...)
>
> sag
On May 7, 3:38 am, Nick Alexander wrote:
> > 1.234567?
>
> +1
>
> > 1.234567?1 is more
>
> -1
>
> Nick
+1 on this example...
I don't want to look stubborn but let's try another vote (it´s my last
comment on this thread...)
sage:RIF( 3 , 3.2 )
4.?
or
sage:RIF( 3 , 3.2 )
4.±1
--~--~-~--
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Yann wrote:
>> or print the error digit 4.?1 (expicit is better than implicit,
>> etc :) )
>
> Well, again this was an explicit decision; the thinking was that if
> somebody saw 1.234567? they might be able to
Nick Alexander wrote:
>> 1.234567?
>
> +1
>
>> 1.234567?1 is more
>
> -1
I vote the same as Nick.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr.
On May 6, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>> 1.234567?
>
> +1
>
>> 1.234567?1 is more
>
> -1
Agreed.
- Robert
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-de
> 1.234567?
+1
> 1.234567?1 is more
-1
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Yann wrote:
> or print the error digit 4.?1 (expicit is better than implicit,
> etc :) )
Well, again this was an explicit decision; the thinking was that if
somebody saw 1.234567? they might be able to guess approximately what
it means without reading the document
On May 6, 11:04 pm, Carl Witty wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Yann wrote:
> >> In other words,
> >> sage: RealIntervalField(4)(0, 1)
> >> 1.?
> >> prints as the interval [0 .. 2], rather than [-1 .. 1], because IMHO
> >> it is useful to be able to know that an interval is nonnegative;
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Yann wrote:
>> In other words,
>> sage: RealIntervalField(4)(0, 1)
>> 1.?
>> prints as the interval [0 .. 2], rather than [-1 .. 1], because IMHO
>> it is useful to be able to know that an interval is nonnegative; and
>> we do this by always picking the result fart
On May 6, 6:35 pm, Carl Witty wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Yann wrote:
>
> > Just for the record,
> > isn't the following a bug?
>
> > sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1)
> > sage: p.str(style='brackets')
> > '[3.00 .. 3.25]'
> > sage: p
> > 4.?
>
> It's a deliberate design decision.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Yann wrote:
>
> Just for the record,
> isn't the following a bug?
>
> sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1)
> sage: p.str(style='brackets')
> '[3.00 .. 3.25]'
> sage: p
> 4.?
It's a deliberate design decision. To quote from real_mpfi.pyx:
When there are two
On May 6, 2:35 am, Yann wrote:
> It's trac #5942
Ok, it looked familiar. I have CCed Carl Witty on the ticket so he is
aware of its existence, not that this implies that he has to fix it.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email
It's trac #5942
On May 6, 11:30 am, mabshoff wrote:
> On May 6, 2:20 am, Yann wrote:
>
> > Just for the record,
> > isn't the following a bug?
>
> It looks like one to me.
>
> > sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1)
> > sage: p.str(style='brackets')
> > '[3.00 .. 3.25]'
> > sage: p
> > 4.?
>
> The
On May 6, 2:20 am, Yann wrote:
> Just for the record,
> isn't the following a bug?
It looks like one to me.
> sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1)
> sage: p.str(style='brackets')
> '[3.00 .. 3.25]'
> sage: p
> 4.?
The printing is a little odd, I would expect it to print 3.? cwitty?
Cheers,
Mi
Just for the record,
isn't the following a bug?
sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1)
sage: p.str(style='brackets')
'[3.00 .. 3.25]'
sage: p
4.?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Henryk Trappmann
wrote:
>
> Ah now I see, you mean though it displays 1/384 it is internally still
> the above sum, which is computed when evaluated with n.
True. In Sage right now the internal form of the expression (not the
simplified form) is used by the "n"
Ah now I see, you mean though it displays 1/384 it is internally still
the above sum, which is computed when evaluated with n.
Well but then this contains imho 2 bugs:
1. 1**(a/b) should be the integer 1.
2. The display of a SymbolicArithmetic should show whats really there
and not reduce before
On 5-May-09, at 5:00 PM, Henryk Trappmann wrote:
>
> sage: a = 1/(48*sqrt(1)) - 7/(96*1**(3/2)) + 3/(32*1**(5/2)) - 5/
> (128*1**(7/2))
> sage: a
> 1/384
> sage: for k in range(5): print a.n(digits=10-k)
> :
> 0.00260418
> 0.00260416669
> 0.0026041665
> 0.002604164
> 0.00260419
I cannot
23 matches
Mail list logo
