I don't see any concrete reason why is_true(x) and is_false(!x) must
be identical... we've already lost a sane definition of equality in
many ways if floating point numbers are involved, so keeping it this
way isn't going to make it any worse.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Kyle Schalm <[EMAIL P
gt; On Jun 4, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Gary Furnish wrote:
>
>> Errors should not under any circumstances be thrown if bool(x==y) is
>> inconclusive. It would break half of the code that depends on
>> symbolics, and would require try blocks around every if statement.
>
> Can you
+1 to "Rigerous" testing of equality, but being able to rigorously
show if something is not equal is hard (and in many nontrivial cases
not possible). bool() should return true "if it can be shown to be
equal"
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Robert Brad
Errors should not under any circumstances be thrown if bool(x==y) is
inconclusive. It would break half of the code that depends on
symbolics, and would require try blocks around every if statement.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 4:16 pm, Rober
+1 to this.
Sage Enhancement Proposal: Change comparisons that involve
elements of the symbolic ring to return True or False if both sides
of the symbolic comparison are constants and the comparison can
be definitely determined. [...] There would be a discussion on sage-devel,
probably some voti
yes
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:48 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 10:27 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 6:53 PM, dvase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > It seems as though I am missing
