Jason Grout wrote: > Chris Seberino wrote: >> >> On Mar 27, 6:04 am, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Maybe one >>> (you? :) ) can implement a catch... >> At first I was interested in this change but now I'm wondering if it >> is best the way it is now. >> >> f(x) = .... defines a symbolic object as was previously mentioned. A >> symbolic object is for analytical results. >> >> It doesn't seem like it would make sense to add any approximation >> relationed functions like n(..) or numerical_integral(..) to a >> symbolic object. >> >> On the other hand,....some may argue that it is best to let the Sage >> user have the freedom to add anything he/she wants to a "symbolic" >> function. >> >> I'm curious what others think. >> > > We already have plenty of approximation functions attached to the > symbolic functions. I think it's extremely valuable. For example, it's > very handy for plotting things. > > sage: sin(1) > sin(1) > sage: sin(1).numerical_approx() > 0.841470984807897 > > > In fact, the first thing n() tries is the numerical_approx() method of > the object. I think all we have to do is define an > integral.numerical_approx() function that returns the results of > numerical_integral()
Um, duh, that's where the TypeError occurs above. Okay, I guess I meant: one should just fix the numeric_approx function for integral... Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
