Hello,
> You and John explained that "x==x" returns an equation since the
> underlying maxima system does.
> So, why does maxima('x')==maxima('x') return True?
> And why maxima('x==x') freezes?
When John said that the underlying system (maxima) uses that
construction, he didn't mean it _literally_. "x==x" isn't even valid
Maxima syntax -- it gives a syntax error. Sage is having trouble
detecting it for some reason so that is indeed a bug, but probably not
what you were thinking of. I've made a ticket for this at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2109 .
If you have a better proposal for handling symbolic equations, I'm
sure people would be more than willing to listen to it. While I don't
really use the symbolic stuff, I personally think the current way of
handling things is very natural and quite usable.
> Automatic simplification is one thing. But is there an explicit way to
> explicitly change an element of the fraction field of QQ[x] into a
> canonical form (i.e., two elements are equal iff the canonical forms
> are identic)? Note that "simplify" doesn't do it.
Like I mentioned in my previous email, no such canonical form has been
decided on. (If you look at the implementation for equality testing
in that ring, it cross multiplies numerators and denominators and
check for equality in QQ['x'].)
--Mike
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
