> > Wouldnt it then be more consistent coerce RealFields to higher > > precision? > > Suppose you write down an expression involving various digits of precision, > and in order to evaluate it Sage makes a sequence of *automatic* > coercions and outputs the result. Do you want an answer that has > many more digits of precision than have any chance of being > meaningful? E.g., would you really find it natural for > R(2)(0.5) + R(1000)(pi) > to implicitly output an answer with 1000 bits of precision?
Especially in this example I would expect the 1000 bits of precision, everything else would be rounding and I dont want rounding to be performed automatically. An innocent 1.0*R(1000)(pi) would kill my laborious obtained precision for pi. If you would carry over this principle to the integers then 1*RR(pi) would be 3. What is the difference? Its just an arbitrariness to coerce to less precision in RealField. However it injures two principles that are otherwise (*between* integers, symbolic ring, real field) always satsified: 1. No automatic rounding. 2. coercing is a homomorphism --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
