Hi Johan, 2010/4/27 Johan Grönqvist <johan.gronqv...@gmail.com>:
<SNIP> > My suggestion is to change the definition of norm on complex numbers. > > If that is not changed, I think that the docstring should clearly state that > sage deviates from the definitions of norm used by wikipedia, springer, > mathematica, maple and matlab, as I expect most people from physics and > engineering expect sage to follow the same definition as those. The current documentation of norm() on complex numbers can be accessed from the Sage website [1]. That documentation leaves much to be desired, even though it makes the distinction between the complex norm and the absolute value of a complex number. Would you upload a patch to the trac server to improve that documentation? If so, please CC me on the relevant ticket and I'd be more than happy to review your patch. [1] http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/rings/complex_number.html#sage.rings.complex_number.ComplexNumber.norm -- Regards Minh Van Nguyen -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
