On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:59:28PM +0100, Thierry wrote: > > These examples are great ! It would be more natural to have > > sage: Infinity in RFF and NaN in RFF # real floating field > > True > > sage: Infinity in RR and NaN in RR # real numbers > > False
i've been waching discussions about real number problems for some time and i have a question. excuse me if this is stupid. there is no such thing as a field of floating point numbers, but the real numbers form a field. i am surprised that this doesnt look like """ sage: Infinity in FPN and NaN in FPN # floating point numbers True sage: Infinity in RR or NaN in RR # real number field False """ from the beginning. doesnt it make (much) more sense to preserve the word "field" for things that are fields in a mathematical sense? and while i'm at it... > sage: Infinity in RRbar > True > sage: NaN in RRbar > False wouldn't it make sense to have both, RR_inf and RR_pminf? one for each compactification... otherwise, why choose one over the other? """ sage: RR_inf(Infinity) == RR_inf(-Infinity) True sage: RR_pminf(Infinity) == RR_pminf(-Infinity) False """ cheers felix -- 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.
