#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 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by pbruin):
Replying to [comment:45 rws]:
> Replying to [comment:41 pbruin]:
> >I currently cannot think of a natural way of implementing this.
> Why generalize? The method could check if `item` has a method
`is_in_RR()` which implementation in a new set is the responsibility of
its author.
I meant I cannot think of a better way than `bool(RR(x) == x)`. What you
propose sounds rather ad hoc; if we need a special method for `RR`, then
we would also need special cases for other inexact rings like `CC`,
''p''-adic rings and power series rings... At most we could use the
`is_real()` method, but looking a bit more into this, I think it does not
work very well either:
{{{
sage: e.is_real()
False
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12967#comment:48>
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.
