On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 8:39:54 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Nathan and Frédéric about backward compatibility. The
>> original question was about whether to proceed with creating a
>> GenuineRealFiel
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 8:39:54 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>
> I agree with Nathan and Frédéric about backward compatibility. The
> original question was about whether to proceed with creating a
> GenuineRealField object. I'm in favor of progress in that direction! But
> I'd also like
I agree with Nathan and Frédéric about backward compatibility. The
original question was about whether to proceed with creating a
GenuineRealField object. I'm in favor of progress in that direction! But
I'd also like to see what that object looks like before making a decision
about changing the
>
> My perspective is partly coming as someone who has several papers that
>> rely heavily on Sage computations. I've archived the code and data in a
>> permanent fashion, but every backwards incompatible change Sage makes
>> decreases the odds that anyone will be able to easily verify or exten
Dear all,
*-1: I don't really care what RealField.__repr__ returns, but cast a token
no vote to object to the logical next move of breaking backwards
compatibility by changing the meaning of RealField and/or RR. I see the
need for a "genuine real field", but it seems a lot simpler just to call
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 15:12 Nathan Dunfield, wrote:
> Well, seriously speaking, such drastic changes are needed sometimes,
>> and they demand a bump in the major version number, e.g. they can
>> happen in Sage 10.0.
>>
> It takes a lot of effort for a newcomer to get that RR and CC are
>> basicall
On 10/16/20 5:25 AM, Samuel Lelièvre wrote:
Le ven. 16 oct. 2020 à 07:50, Vincent Delecroix:
However, they are much more than sets as they come with approximations
of the field operations (+, x, ^-1)
I like your suggestions. I liked the shortness of RealFloats,
but I'm not strongly attac
>
> Well, seriously speaking, such drastic changes are needed sometimes,
> and they demand a bump in the major version number, e.g. they can
> happen in Sage 10.0.
>
It takes a lot of effort for a newcomer to get that RR and CC are
> basically RDF and CDF on steroids, to get the mysteries of A
On 10/20/20 12:12 AM, Nathan Dunfield wrote:
-1: I don't really care what RealField.__repr__ returns, but cast a
token no vote to object to the logical next move of breaking backwards
compatibility by changing the meaning of RealField and/or RR. I see the
need for a "genuine real field", but i
Le ven. 16 oct. 2020 à 07:50, Vincent Delecroix:
>
> I agree that these are not fields in the mathematical sense. And Sage
> knows about it
>
> sage: RR.is_exact()
> False
> sage: QQ.is_exact()
> True
>
> However, they are much more than sets as they come with approximations
> of the field operatio
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 8:07 AM Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> -1, agreed with Nathan Dunfield
>
> Le mardi 20 octobre 2020 à 06:12:39 UTC+2, Nathan Dunfield a écrit :
>>
>> -1: I don't really care what RealField.__repr__ returns, but cast a token no
>> vote to object to the logical next move of br
-1, agreed with Nathan Dunfield
Le mardi 20 octobre 2020 à 06:12:39 UTC+2, Nathan Dunfield a écrit :
> -1: I don't really care what RealField.__repr__ returns, but cast a token
> no vote to object to the logical next move of breaking backwards
> compatibility by changing the meaning of RealFiel
12 matches
Mail list logo
