2007/7/8, Hamptonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > My biases are probably based on using mathematica for 17 years, but I > like the way it handles numerical vs symbolic computations. So at > present, in sage, sin(1) is symbolic, and sin(1.0) is numerical, and
+1, I like this behavior as well. And I like that currently you can mix both symbolic and numerical types (e.g. in polynomial expressions). > this I think is good. What I think is bad is that something like > 1.0*sin(1) is not numerical - in mathematica the sin(1) would be Some people like symbolic expression, some like numerical expressions for the above case :) . This is off-topic: given a floating-point number, I think it would be cool to have a way of telling users, "BTW,34.0191213743 is quite close to 7*(pi + e - 1) in the field you're working with". This is probably very hard. 2007/7/7, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So I propose that the only symbolic variables that are predefined > are x (since it's so useful to have this predefined), I (=sqrt(-1)), > and e (=2.7...). What about pi? :) . It seems to me that pi is as "special" as e. didier --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
