Re: [sage-devel] Re: Physical constants

2012-03-30 Thread Eviatar
Sorry that I wasn't clear. I meant the actual object representing a number with uncertainty; for example, 4.0 +- 0.25. It's not quite an interval, since operations are handled very differently. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this grou

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Physical constants

2012-03-30 Thread David Roe
I'm confused by what you mean by "error propagation class." Should you just inherit from Exception, ValueError, etc? David On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:17, Eviatar wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on implementing an error propagation class, which is quite > easy. However, the type system/coercion

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Physical constants

2012-03-17 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > Just to rephrase things, there should be > a) a new ring analogous to RIF that does error propagation (instead of > interval arithmetic) > b) the elements of this ring should have units attached and check that they > match in ring operations

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Physical constants

2012-03-17 Thread William Stein
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM, David Roe wrote: > That sounds really useful actually.  I still don't think it's enough for a > GSOC project; is there something related we could add? > David This sounds like arithmetic with *random variables*, which is something a probabilistic should implement

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Physical constants

2012-03-17 Thread David Roe
That sounds really useful actually. I still don't think it's enough for a GSOC project; is there something related we could add? David On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:23, Volker Braun wrote: > Just to rephrase things, there should be > a) a new ring analogous to RIF that does error propagation (inst