Hmm, there seems to be many assumptions that I would like it be clarified.
Specifically where do all these objects live in.
For example, sin is a function from K->K.
same as cos. If that's the case, then sin+cos makes perfect sense.
Can we make the same assumtion for x? Is it safe to assume x is also
a function from K->K? Can we assume sin(x)=sin?
BTW, I don't think this is a good idea:
>> sage: x, y=vars('x y')
>> sage: y + sin
>> y + sin(y)
>> sage: x + sin
>> x + sin(x)
If I understand the logic of everything, y is an element of functions
from K^2 -> K, while sin is a function from K->K.
Soroosh
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:29:26PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 2:24 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > On 9/12/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> BTW, I think this is a bug:
> >>>>
> >>>> sage: f = x+y
> >>>> sage: f
> >>>> y + x
> >>>> sage: f(4)
> >>>> y + 4
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> That's not a bug, that's *exactly* how we designed things
> >>> to work. Calling when the inputs are explicit is done with
> >>> the variables in dictionary order.
> >>
> >> I'll take that back, I didn't know dictionary order was explicitly
> >> used, and I'm OK with that as there is no ambiguity. Is there any
> >> reason f(2,3) does not work?
> >>
> >
> > I can't think of any, so *that* must be a bug. Could you open
> > a trac ticket for it?
> >
> > William
>
> Done. http://www.sagemath.org:9002/sage_trac/ticket/645
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
