I would agree to all the above, but be warned: sage: log2 log2 sage: type(log2) <type 'sage.symbolic.expression.Expression'> sage: log2.n() 0.693147180559945 sage: log(2) log(2) sage: log(2).n() 0.693147180559945
i.e. log2 is already defined to equal log(2) (to base e!). We are already inconsistent, since log2 is a symbolic constant meaning log(2), whereas there are *already* functions in Sage whenre log2 means log-to-the-base-2: sage: RR(32).log2() 5.00000000000000 John On 10 January 2013 14:18, Nathann Cohen <nathann.co...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Certainly don't change log(), that would break way too much! > > Ahahaah. I'm in this kind of mood, sometimes :-P > > okok, then just an alias for log10 and log2 ? I believe that this makes > sense... > > Nathann > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > 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. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
