On 03/26/2015 04:12 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Actally, there is common idea behind all Expression domains. Namely > genaral case is expression trees: expression is either operator > applied to arguments (which again are expressions), variable or > a constant. X in Expression(X) provides constants. In ideal > word equality in Expression(X) would consider theory of X, that > is e1 = e2 would means that there is provable that for all > possible values of variables there is equality. Of course > such equality is undecidable in general and we have no > computational representation of axioms of X.
Oh. Very well explained. Thank you. I must say that seeing Expression(X) conceptually as terms over the underlying domain X makes a lot of sense. It also explains a bit the different representations. In fact, it even more makes me want to create separate term algebras for different capabilities of X. In fact, it should be somewhere explained better what Expression(X) actually stands for. > In the past I was thinking about splitting Expression into > more domains. But IMO if we do so it will be due to > pragmatic reasons. Conceptually Expression is OK. With your explanation I'll rethink my aversion to Expression(X). I guess, I'm somewhat at the level of still wanting to provide several separate expression domains for special X, but at the moment I've not yet real need for such a change. 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.
