> You should do it the right way instead of the wrong way. It is a very > bad idea to do stuff like "ln(CC(-5).n(prec=100))", which basically > says "take -5, think of it as a complex number with 53 bits of > precision, take the log, then view the answer as magically having 100 > bits of precision by basically randomly making up the missing 47 > bits".
Dear William, With "ln(CC(-5).n(prec=100))" I'm not taking the log of a number with 53-bit precision hoping that it magically turns into a 100-bit precision number, what you mean would be "ln(CC(-5)).n(prec=100)", I'm taking the log of CC(-5).n(prec=100) which obviously should be a 100-bit precision number, But the main question actually was if it's a desired behauviour that CC (-5).n(prec=100) is a real number: sage: type(CC(-5).n(prec=100)) <type 'sage.rings.real_mpfr.RealNumber'> increasing precision of a complex number should not change it's type, or? Georg --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
