On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 3:30:03 AM UTC-7, Michael Jung wrote: > > Nice example! I see your point. > > However, I wonder. The matrix inversion should cause the same problem, but > it is implemented for the symbolic ring. What is different? >
I don't think it is really implemented *for* the symbolic ring. It's just an implementation that gets used for the symbolic ring and once people submit enough bug reports about it, it probably needs to be deprecated of be adorned with a warning message. For Gram-Schmidt, there's a further problem: you need a definite inner product for it to work. SR contains elements from C. So do we take the standard Hermitian inner product? In fact, there are all kinds of functions in there as well, so perhaps a Hilbert space inner product is appropriate. But which one? I think the problems of SR for this are so obvious that no-one dared to ignore them when thinking of providing an implementation. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0e77b6c0-9e58-44a4-8f48-c578cf15267d%40googlegroups.com.
