I think having physical constants would be great (probably as attributes of another object, to avoid cluttering the namespace too much), but there doesn't seem to be near enough meat here for a full GSoC project.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Eviatar <eviatarb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I was thinking about doing a GSoC project this summer. I don't think I would > need too much mentoring since I have already written several patches for > Sage. My idea was to implement physical constants, much > like http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/PhysicalConstants/tutorial/PhysicalConstants.html. > The ones with uncertainty would be implemented as real intervals, while the > exact ones could be numerically approximated. It would also integrate with > the units support that Sage already has. I think it would serve an > educational purpose, since I've seen Mathematica used in high school physics > classes. Not only would the constants be easily accessible, but the > dimensional analysis can help confirm or reject an answer. > > Do you think this would be enough for GSoC? > > Thank you, > Eviatar > > -- > 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 -- 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
