#11506: Fix the infinity ring.
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vbraun | Owner: AlexGhitza
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: algebra | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Volker Braun | Reviewers: Peter Bruin
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/vbraun/infinity_ring | f96c67ec2103455ab72783f4c4eb4484e588fdd5
Dependencies: 13125 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vbraun):
* reviewer: => Peter Bruin
Comment:
IMHO things like `i*oo` make sense, we should just support arbitrary
phases instead of only `+/-`. I did implement that in pynac so it works in
the symbolic ring. But extending the infinity ring is a different ticket.
In the absence of an infinity ring with phases, comparisons with complex
numbers will always be somewhat wonky. But then that is not __too__ bad
since they can't really be compared.
I disagree with the "`Infinity in RR` should be false" discussion above.
In Sage, `RR` can represent plus/minus infinity because `RDF` can
represent infinity by IEEE. The fact that `RR(oo) == oo` is the whole
point of the infinity ring, namely to have consistent comparisons across
various rings that can represent infinity.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/11506#comment:14>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
