I mean, I know about this, I guess it's just jarring to see it in action
(especially when the truth of x > x-1 depends on how many variables your
polynomial ring has). I feel like it goes against duck-typing. If I write
code that I want to work as long as there's a well-defined notion of
positi
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:38 AM Rob H. wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> So I was surprised to find out that asking if a polynomial is > 0 doesn't
> raise an error.
many Sage objects compare in a totally non-mathematical way, just to
be able to sort them.
Polynomials are no exception.
One day we migh
Hi all,
So I was surprised to find out that asking if a polynomial is > 0 doesn't
raise an error. Now, maybe there's a good reason why it returns True and
I'm too tired to think about why. At the very least, here is some
disturbing behaviour.
sage: R. = PolynomialRing(QQ)
sage: x > x-1
True
