#12967: bugs in comparisons between constants, wrapped pyobjects, infinity
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dkrenn | Owner: burcin
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: symbolics | Resolution:
Keywords: compare pi | Merged in:
infinity bool | Reviewers: Karl-Dieter Crisman
Authors: Travis Scrimshaw, | Work issues:
Ralf Stephan | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | c5845f6b18d582807dafaaf60ad6a5c8017173f3
Branch: u/rws/12967-2 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: #17984 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by pbruin):
* status: needs_review => needs_work
Comment:
I'm afraid this implementation of `__contains__()` will make `Mod(1, 2) in
RR` return `True`, which is obviously wrong. This is probably the reason
why the nonsense input in the Chebyshev doctests is no longer detected.
I am in general hesitant about the idea of needing a custom
`__contains__()` method; the strategy to implement `x in P` as `bool(P(x)
== x)` basically seems a good one to me. How about fixing `__cmp__()` (or
similar) when comparing symbolic expressions with numerical approximations
so that (for example) `bool(pi == 3.14[...])` returns `True` if the
approximation is correct to the given precision?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12967#comment:35>
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.
