The current implementation using InfinityRing and SignedInfinityRing
is very close to having a value saying "not defined" (i.e. NaN), and
viewed in that light the way things currently work makes sense. It
works for the purpose of not raising an exception on division by zero.
I am not at all sure I
So, I think I was the one to rework infinity most recently. I don't
really have time today to expand at length on the issues you brought
up, but I agree with them to some extent. I will note that a coercion
is "a natural map into the object," which is why your first example
failed, but the __cal
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:32:44 -0800
"William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 3:36 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I agree--rather than just having a signed/unsigned infinity ring, I
> > think there should be an extended ring for Z, Q, R, C--both signed
On Jan 25, 2008 3:36 AM, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree--rather than just having a signed/unsigned infinity ring, I
> think there should be an extended ring for Z, Q, R, C--both signed
> and unsigned when there is an absolute order. When does the concept
> of infinity make
I agree--rather than just having a signed/unsigned infinity ring, I
think there should be an extended ring for Z, Q, R, C--both signed
and unsigned when there is an absolute order. When does the concept
of infinity make sense for a given ring? 1 (or 2)-point
compactification? (not for Q),
So perhaps the solution to your problem is the extended integers (or
extended rationals). This needs some work (both in terms of speed and with
having multiple types for elements of the same parent), but it does have the
benefit of returning 1 as the answer to 1 + 0/infinity. Perhaps the default
Hello,
Today I witnessed a mathematica user struggling with Sage because of
the way Sage handles infinity. On trac #1915 you can see an example.
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:52:32 -0500
David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Question: why does the "unsigned infinity ring" not have a zero
> eleme
The reason I put it in is that if you have signed infinities then you might
as well preserve the sign when you invert them, which means that you should
have a divider. Yes, that means you sometimes get elements where you don't
know if it's positive or negative. I think that's okay, but then I'm t
