On Feb 9, 2008 1:14 PM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Bobby, > > On Feb 9, 12:26 pm, "Bobby Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We chose this since triple equals seemed ridiculous. > > Certainly i understand that you had to make a choice, and i agree that > it is a reasonable choice. > Certainly i agree that a change would be destructive, > and certainly for a mathematician > sage: solve(x^2 - 2 == 0, x) > or even more > sage: solve(x^2 - 2 = 0, x) > is very intuitive. > > Confusing is it only for those who did programming before. In > solve(x^2 - 2 == 0, x), i would guess that the "equation" is first > evaluated, and it becomes solve(False,x). > > Is it technically possible that Sage generally interpretes "==" as a > test for equivalence, *except* if it is used inside "solve"? > > > 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. > > How often does one need an equation *outside solve*? I never did! > So, if one really wants an equation as an object, why not eq(f,g)? > > And if one wants to use solve, why not in that way: > sage: solve(x^2,'=',2,x) # solves x^2=2 > sage: solve(x^2,'<',2,x) # solves x^2<2 > etc. > > Or: > sage: solve(x^2-2,x) > This would solve x^2-2=0, and i think there are CAS who have that > syntax in a solve command!
Exactly, this is my philosophy too. But I understand other people may have different opinions. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
