Hi, On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:29:47PM -0700, mmarco wrote: > RR if you don't care about the lack of exactness > QQ or some extension (like AA) if you want exactness but don't mind the > lack of transcendentals > SR if you want to allow arbitrary expressions, with the problem of speed > and maybe the lack of a unique form for each element. > > I don't think that you can do much better than that to work with the reals.
One could imagine the following improvement (which i would love, at least to make things easier to learn and teach): - rename RR as RFF (for "real floating field"), so that this representation is not preferred than the others (especially RDF which is faster and allows using more libraries, with the same 53 bits of precision). The current name RR suggests it is the right default choice. - create RSF (for "real symbolic field") to isolate pi and sqrt(2) from cos(x) in the symbolic ring. - re-create RR as an "overlay field" over the different representations (numeric (RFF, RDF, RIF), algebraic, symbolic) of the genuine real field in Sage. Perhaps could the experience of the community with the category framework help in the design of such a meta-representation. Idem with CFF, CSF, CC for complex numbers. Ciao, Thierry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
