On Feb 9, 2008 3:07 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Feb 9, 8:44 am, "Jurgis Pralgauskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > <snip> > > maybe "===" would be better for equations? > > At least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign a > triple equals sign usually denotes identity, whereas the meaning of a > single or a double equals sign is ambiguous. Hence, "A===B" should > either be a synonym for "A is B", or it would introduce another > confusion. > > > as much as I remember, maxima uses "=", so "==" also doesn't help > > maxima users a lot.. > > If this is true (i never met maxima before, but i did met "==" > before...) then i really don't see why "==" in some context creates an > equation. Except that now it would likely be difficult to change, > since some code may depend on it.
When you make two *purely* symbolic expressions, and compare them, is it unreasonable for this to create a symbolic equation? What is a more natural way to create symbolic equations and inequalities? We chose this since triple equals seemed ridiculous. Double equals existed in python so no preparsing was required. It did not even break anything like hash table lookups since we could override __nonzero__. If not ==, what would you propose for creating symbolic expression objects? The other obvious choice is eq(f, g), but I think that this is inferior since it is much harder to guess. sage: solve(x^2 - 2 == 0, x) as opposed to sage: solve(eq(x^2 -2, 0), x) The first is totally clear, and is more similar to mathematical notation... -Bobby -- Bobby Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
