On 08/05/2014 06:38 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > I am thinking about including (possibly improved) > version of this patch. Comments?
This is probably only a side remark, but nevertheless, I would like to raise it here. I understand that a (technical) linear order is sometimes useful to get a "nice" result, but I must criticize the use or the definition of "smaller?". Looking at the definition at http://fricas.github.io/api/Comparable.html#index-1 doesn't tell me that smaller? has anything to do with a (possibly) partial order < on the domain. isign x == zero? x => 0 is?(x, opabs) => 1 is?(x, opsign) => x smaller?(x, 0) => kernel(opsign, -x) kernel(opsign, x) Furthermore, unless there is a clear specification (i.e. axioms) of how smaller?: (F, F) -> Boolean 0: F -: F -> F and perhaps even <: (F, F) -> Boolean are related -- Note that we have -- CombinatorialFunction(R, F) : Exports == Implementation where -- R : Join(Comparable, IntegralDomain) -- F : FunctionSpace R -- in this context and x: F.) I would claim that the above is a clear bug, since it builds on an order that is specifiecd to be just some arbitrary technical linear order. Ralf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" 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/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
