On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:03:12AM -0700, Harsh Gupta wrote:
>    This comes from the discussions on this PR
>    https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/7462#issuecomment-42111992
>    We have a class called UniversalSet which is supposed to be *set* which
>    contains all the sets which we can define in Sympy. The problem is that we
>    really don't "know" what our defined Universal Set is. It has been
>    proposed by Sergey that we wipe out the Universal Set class. We can
>    explicitly provide the the known defined universal set when situation asks
>    for it, that set can be complex, real or real*real or anything. I'm +1 to
>    the proposal. I guess this goes with "Explicit is better than Implicit"
>    from the Zen of Python.  At places we are implicitly assuming UniversalSet
>    to Interval(-oo, oo) which is clearly wrong. Then we cannot define
>    operations like PowerSet and cardinality on such sets. We can avoid the
>    problem by leaving PowerSet or cardinality undefined for UniversalSet, but
>    not having an UniversalSet will be a better way to avoid unknown
>    inconsistencies.

btw, some statistics:
$ fgrep -R UniversalSet sympy/|wc -l
22
$ fgrep -R UniversalSet sympy/ 2>/dev/null|grep -v 'core/sets.py'|grep -v 
'core/tests/test_sets.py'|wc -l
8

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sympy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/20140510183503.GB18695%40debian.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to