2009/3/13 Ralf Hemmecke <r...@hemmecke.de>: > > On 03/12/2009 09:53 PM, Bill Page wrote: >> But why doesn't the following constitute a ValueError? >> >> sage: a=GF(2)(1); b=GF(5)(1); c==11 >> True >> sage: a==c >> True >> sage: b==c >> True >> sage: a==b >> False >> >> ---- >> >> Equality isn't even transitive! This False result could easily mask a >> simple error in the coding of some algorithm. > > That non-transitivity basically means that == is not an equivalence > function. Ehm, well, on which set anyway?
You are right, == is not an equivalnce relation, which used to bother me: sage: 1 == Integers(3)(4) True sage: Integers(3)(4) == 7 True sage: 1 == 7 False > > Is there a function in Sage that really behaves like mathematical equality? If you think about it, this would be rather hard to implement in general, in terms of complexity at least. John > > Ralf > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
