Hello, The unresolved issue of different types of "complex I" continues to make things difficult.
For example with pynac-0.7.11 `sin(I)` simplifies to `I*sinh(1)` because Pynac recognizes a multiple of (number field) `I` as argument to `sin` and divides by number field `I` to get the argument of `sinh`. Now, in an existing doctest `sin(QQbar(I))` gives an error because number field I and QQbar I are in the same arithmetic operation. If one expects something non-crashing resulting from `sin(QQbar(I))`, what should we do? Try to return `I*sinh(1)` where `I` is what? `QQbar` or number field? What if the input is `sin(I)+cos(QQbar(I))`? If OTOH an error should be returned, do we simply disallow calculus functions on `QQbar` elements? If so then either 1. calculus functions could well be disallowed for a broad range of algebraic objects; or 2. SR may not be the coerce-all-in ring that some suggest it to be. Please let us resolve the nexus of these questions. For previous discussions see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18036 Regards, -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
