Re: [sage-devel] Re: factorial() and gamma()

2010-06-17 Thread Florent Hivert
Hi there, > > In Sage, the behavior of sqrt(2) versus sqrt(4) is considered very > > reasonable > > to most users.  And it does exactly what you claim is "rather bad form". > > > > sage: sqrt(2) > > sqrt(2) > > sage: sqrt(4) > > 2 > > sage: type(sqrt(2)) > > > > sage: type(sqrt(4)) > > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: factorial() and gamma()

2010-06-17 Thread William Stein
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Nils Bruin wrote: > On Jun 17, 10:32 am, Robert Dodier wrote: >> On Jun 16, 11:24 am, Tom Coates wrote: >> >> > A)  factorial(x) should raise an error; >> >> > B)  factorial(x) should return gamma(x+1). >> >> More generally, the question is what to do with somet

Re: [sage-devel] Re: factorial() and gamma()

2010-06-17 Thread David Kirkby
On 16 June 2010 15:48, rjf wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 9:28 pm, Tom Coates wrote: > > By your reasoning, and for other domains we would have the following > behavior: > sqrt(-1) -->  error.  after all, some Sage users may not have > encountered imaginary numbers. > RJF That's a very weak argument.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: factorial() and gamma()

2010-06-16 Thread Dan Drake
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 at 01:58PM -0400, Jason Bandlow wrote: > > At the moment there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way. > > If you have an opinion on this, please vote! Let x be an explicit > > numerical value such that x is not a non-negative integer (e.g. x=2/3, > > x=1.5, or x=i).

Re: [sage-devel] Re: factorial() and gamma()

2010-06-16 Thread David Kirkby
On 16 June 2010 18:24, Tom Coates wrote: > At the moment there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way. > If you have an opinion on this, please vote!  Let x be an explicit > numerical value such that x is not a non-negative integer (e.g. x=2/3, > x=1.5, or x=i).  The options are: > > A)

Re: [sage-devel] Re: factorial() and gamma()

2010-06-16 Thread Peter Jeremy
On 2010-Jun-16 10:24:35 -0700, Tom Coates wrote: >That said, if the consensus is that factorial(x) should be >analytically continued, to allow x to be an explicit non-integral >number (as is the case in Maple and Mathematica), then I am happy with >this. But then we should change the documentatio

Re: [sage-devel] Re: factorial() and gamma()

2010-06-16 Thread Robert Miller
> At the moment there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way. > If you have an opinion on this, please vote!  Let x be an explicit > numerical value such that x is not a non-negative integer (e.g. x=2/3, > x=1.5, or x=i).  The options are: > > A)  factorial(x) should raise an error; > > B