On Feb 21, 9:36 pm, Mark Rahner <rah...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > So once it comes back to Sage, its internal representation goes back to the > > Ginac one. > My initial problem was the severe obfuscation that resulted when extra > factors added by the canonical form refused to cancel and then > replicated geometrically. Severe obfuscation is obviously a bad > thing. It grows out of simple obfuscation of much simpler > expressions. Should "( 1/7 * sqrt(21) ).full_simplify()" produce > "1/7*sqrt(3)*sqrt(7)" when "sqrt(3)/sqrt(7)" is an option? Having > fewer factors is an important part of being simpler. In the more > complicated expression, the factors involving 7s aren't even > adjacent. I don't know if the more complicated forms are required for > GiNaC to perform efficiently. However, from an interactive user's > perspective, this issue is perplexing because it only involves the > representation of constants. What could be simpler? (pun intended) "Canonical form" and "simplify" aren't the same thing (necessarily). See Carette,J., Understanding Expression Simplification. Proc. ISSAC 2004 (ed. J. Gutierrez), ACM Press, New York, 2004, pp. 72-79.
-- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
