I opened a separate ticket #10946 for this issue.
Hopefully someone with better knowledge of keywords, evaluations,
polynomials, singulars and such will find a way to solve it.
Thanks for the comments.
Chris.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscrib
> Given f in R[x,y], I think f(x=a, y=b) should do exactly the same
> thing as f(a,b). The parent should be the same as R.base_ring()(0) + a
> + b.
+1
> The difficult case is what to do for f(x=5). Should that be the same
> as f(x=5, y=y) or a univariate polynomial?
I would certainly read f(x=5) a
> Given f in R[x,y], I think f(x=a, y=b) should do exactly the same
> thing as f(a,b). The parent should be the same as R.base_ring()(0) + a
> + b.
+1
> The difficult case is what to do for f(x=5). Should that be the same
> as f(x=5, y=y) or a univariate polynomial?
I would certainly read f(x=5) a
> > No I am against changing this. For two reasons, when working with
> > polynomials in variable names liks "k", "p". It is not always easy to
> > remember which was the first and which was the second variable. Then
> > it is very handy to pass keywords for evaluation - but still to expect
> > a
Hi Chris,
On 14 Mrz., 23:31, chris wuthrich
wrote:
> I hope we agree that evaluation (meaning evaluation of all variables
> by some elements in a ring) should yield an element of the ring. I
> don't mind if subs should give back a polynomial in all cases.
>
> [Aside: Strangely this is not the cas
Hi Robert,
On 14 Mrz., 23:29, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> > Yes, but the fact that f(2,3) has a different parent than f(x=2,y=3)
> > has a high probability of being troublesome.
>
> Given f in R[x,y], I think f(x=a, y=b) should do exactly the same
> thing as f(a,b). The parent should be the same as
I hope we agree that evaluation (meaning evaluation of all variables
by some elements in a ring) should yield an element of the ring. I
don't mind if subs should give back a polynomial in all cases.
[Aside: Strangely this is not the case for symbolic expressions. I am
sure there must have been a
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Simon King wrote:
> On 11 Mrz., 17:24, Volker Braun wrote:
>> Substitution should always try to return the same type (i.e. same parent) if
>> possible. Anything else will just be a constant source of bugs where your
>> code works with generic polynomial input, but
I hope we agree that evaluation (meaning evaluation of all variables
by some elements in a ring) should yield an element of the ring. I
don't mind if subs should give back a polynomial in all cases.
[Aside: Strangely this is not the case for symbolic expressions. I am
sure there must have been a
I hope we agree that evaluation (meaning evaluation of all variables
by some elements in a ring) should yield an element of the ring. I
don't mind if subs should give back a polynomial in all cases.
[Aside: Strangely this is not the case for symbolic expressions. I am
sure there must have been a
I agree that thats the only valid question here: is f(x=2,y=3) substitution
or evaluation? The call syntax suggests evaluation, but keywords allow you
to only substitute some variables. I'm tempted to say that since its not
obvious we shouldn't have the function at all, that is, don't allow keyw
On 11 Mrz., 17:24, Volker Braun wrote:
> Substitution should always try to return the same type (i.e. same parent) if
> possible. Anything else will just be a constant source of bugs where your
> code works with generic polynomial input, but not for constants.
Yes, but the fact that f(2,3) has a
Substitution should always try to return the same type (i.e. same parent) if
possible. Anything else will just be a constant source of bugs where your
code works with generic polynomial input, but not for constants.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsub
13 matches
Mail list logo
