#16616: assumption inconsistency check inconsistent
-----------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: rws | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: symbolics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-----------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by rws):
First, the resolution of the ticket does not require to fix it in Maxima
---the potential author may decide to donate fresh assumption handling
code to Sage, which then uses Maxima for integration/ODEs, but bypasses
Maxima for other tasks.
That it's difficult in general may be true if the full math vocabulary
were implemented. I don't see why it's difficult with this very limited
set of strings:
{{{
ValueError: ... must be one of [integer, noninteger, even, odd, rational,
irrational, real, imaginary, complex, analytic, increasing, decreasing,
oddfun, evenfun, posfun, constant, commutative, lassociative,
rassociative,
symmetric, antisymmetric, integervalued, one_to_one]
}}}
Granted it's more difficult if equations or relations come into play. Also
granted that the algorithms to ensure this (theorem proving?) are not in
Sage at the moment.
OTOH the title says "inconsistent". I think that another resolution of the
ticket could be to catch consistency errors and don't bother the user with
them, at all.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16616#comment:2>
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.
