On Jan 25, 9:22 am, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:58:15 AM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> > sage: bool(37 +i < 37 -i)
> > False
>
> False meaning that Sage cannot affirm that it is true; IMHO the correct
> answer.
>
> > sage: bool(37 +i > 37 -i)
> > True
>
> BUG
Having "<" r
> Some people have proposed that it would be a good idea to have an
> architecture for comparisons that are useful for making output (e.g.,
> a list of complex numbers) be returned in some well-defined order, but
> which wouldn't be __cmp__. Then one can order complex (number
> field, etc.) el
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Christopher Swenson
wrote:
> Fair enough. :)
It's just that often people freak all the time about Sage allowing "<"
and complex numbers in the same room.
Some people have proposed that it would be a good idea to have an
architecture for comparisons that are usefu
Fair enough. :)
--Christopher
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:46, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Christopher Swenson
> wrote:
> > Looking in rings/complex_number.pyx, it looks like it a simple lex
> ordering.
> > I would bet that this is because people would be annoyed th
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Christopher Swenson
wrote:
> Looking in rings/complex_number.pyx, it looks like it a simple lex ordering.
> I would bet that this is because people would be annoyed that you get an
> exception if you tried to sort a list of complex numbers, even though you
> can't
Looking in rings/complex_number.pyx, it looks like it a simple lex
ordering. I would bet that this is because people would be annoyed that
you get an exception if you tried to sort a list of complex numbers, even
though you can't. :)
--Christopher
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:22, Volker Braun wro
On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:58:15 AM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> sage: bool(37 +i < 37 -i)
> False
>
False meaning that Sage cannot affirm that it is true; IMHO the correct
answer.
> sage: bool(37 +i > 37 -i)
> True
>
BUG
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@goo
Now that's just cheating.
--Christopher
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:58, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:05 am, Christopher Swenson wrote:
> > If we have possible confusions about the numberiung, we should give them
> > complex number identifier. So, 37, 37 + i, 37 - i, etc.
> >
> > Who knows w
On Jan 25, 7:05 am, Christopher Swenson wrote:
> If we have possible confusions about the numberiung, we should give them
> complex number identifier. So, 37, 37 + i, 37 - i, etc.
>
> Who knows which one comes first then?
Python doesn't:
sage: complex(37,1) 37 -i)
True
--
To post to this group,
If we have possible confusions about the numberiung, we should give them
complex number identifier. So, 37, 37 + i, 37 - i, etc.
Who knows which one comes first then?
--Christopher
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 09:39, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
> > > I thought last time we had this discussion (for 35.5
> > I thought last time we had this discussion (for 35.5), the conclusion was to
> > just have integer Sage Days, and sometimes they would be out of order (i.e.,
> > the integers represented when the Sage Days was planned and reserved, not
> > necessarily when it happened on the calendar).
+1
SL
Hi Dan,
any particular plans for it?
Considering that Korea is almost the same timezone, and reachable
reasonably quickly from Singapore,
it sound interesting...
Dima
On Monday, January 23, 2012 1:39:36 PM UTC+8, Dan Drake wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 at 01:41PM -0500, Franco Saliola wrote:
> >
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 1/24/12 11:59 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> There will be >= 1 bug days. Fractional numbers are fine.
>
>
> I thought last time we had this discussion (for 35.5), the conclusion was to
> just have integer Sage Days, and sometimes they wo
On 1/24/12 11:59 PM, William Stein wrote:
There will be >= 1 bug days. Fractional numbers are fine.
I thought last time we had this discussion (for 35.5), the conclusion
was to just have integer Sage Days, and sometimes they would be out of
order (i.e., the integers represented when the Sag
On Jan 22, 9:39 pm, Dan Drake wrote:
> > Anyone know of any upcoming events not listed on the wiki page? Or,
> > are there any objections if we claim Sage Days 38?
>
> Sounds good to me. We'll do 37 here.
And maybe will claim 39 for Sage Days in Seattle in mid-June? Any
plans for anything betwee
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 at 01:41PM -0500, Franco Saliola wrote:
>> Hello everyone.
>>
>> We will be organizing a Sage Days in Montreal (7-11 May), and we want
>> to claim a number in order to start announcing, advertising, etc.
>>
>> On the wiki pag
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 at 01:41PM -0500, Franco Saliola wrote:
> Hello everyone.
>
> We will be organizing a Sage Days in Montreal (7-11 May), and we want
> to claim a number in order to start announcing, advertising, etc.
>
> On the wiki page Sage Days 36 has been claimed, and it is written:
>
> S
17 matches
Mail list logo
