2008/6/2 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Gary Furnish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> -1. First, everything cwitty said is correct. Second, if we start >> using ZZ[sqrt(2)] and ZZ[sqrt(3)], then sqrt(2)+sqrt(3) requires going >> through the coercion system which was designed to be elegant instead >> of fast, so this becomes insanely slow for any serious use. Finally, >> this is going to require serious code duplication from symbolics, so >> I'm not sure what the big gain is over just using symbolics to do this >> in the first place. > > Also, cwitty pointed out that > > sage: sum([sqrt(p) for p in prime_range(1000)]) > > works fine in Sage now, but with your (and my) proposal, > it would be impossible, since it would require constructing > a ring of integers of a number field of degree 2^168..
Surely that is something which we can train users not to do? I remember years ago learning the difference in pari/gp between sum(n=1,1000,1/n) and sum(n=1,1000,1.0/n) and it's a lesson which only needs to be learnt once. On the other hand pari/gp always has assumed a lot of its users, and Sage has aspirations to be easy to use too... John > > -- William > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
