[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

On page 3 at the top, is that a typo with how (9)(1/2) is formatted? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

Relying on what Maxima does for infinities is probably not a great tactic. There are two models, conflicting and yet both in use. And neither one quite covers what you might want. See http://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/infinity.pdf for some discussion. Is there "one point" where

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

Will there be a trac made about this? On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 3:36:50 PM UTC-5, john_perry_usm wrote: > > This surprised me today: > > > limit(1/x, x=0) > Infinity > > I was expecting something more like this: > > > limit(x/abs(x), x=0) > und > > The help on Infinity wasn't illuminating: > >

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

> You can work around it by always requesting a bool around > symbolic equations. > It = your problem, not the bug -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

> unsigned_infinity is Infinity False > Infinity is +Infinity True I agree this should be designed better by giving complex oo a different print string like UnsignedInfinity. sage: limit(1/x, x=0) == unsigned_infinity True This is a bug because it should show an equation. Good catch! You can

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

(Argh. If my phrase "typed Infinity" is unclear: I meant "Infinity when typed by the user at the prompt or in a cell," not "typed" in a programming language sense.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

OK, a bit more work & two things cleared up. This was just dumb on my part: > limit(1/x, x=0) is unsigned_infinity That should definitely be False, no disagreement there. I had misunderstood the meaning of the word "is". (Insert political joke here.) Further, this behavior actually makes

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

Thank you! Still, the following behavior is awfully confusing to me: > unsigned_infinity Infinity > unsigned_infinity is Infinity False > Infinity is +Infinity True > limit(1/x, x=0) is unsigned_infinity False > (limit(1/x, x=0) == +Infinity).full_simplify() 1 I'd think the the answers after the

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

Yes Maxima's unsigned inf is converted to Sage's unsigned inf. And: sage: unsigned_infinity Infinity versus sage: +Infinity +Infinity So you really got unsigned inf first. BTW, SymPy names it zoo which I like. On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 6:48:48 AM UTC+2, john_perry_usm wrote: > > I

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

I decided to dig further. Maxima's documentation contains information that Sage's docs lack: infinity (complex infinity) is returned when the limit of the absolute > value of the expression is positive infinity, but the

[sage-devel] Re: limit bug that I'm really sure used to work correctly

I should elaborate on this after rereading the limit documentation more carefully. It states: Return the limit as the variable v approaches a from the given direction. expr.limit(x = a) expr.limit(x = a, dir='above') INPUT: * "dir" - (default: None); dir may have the