Re: Boolean tests [was Re: Attack a sacred Python Cow]
Erik Max Francis wrote:
[responding to me]
Your remarks are correct as far as they go, but..
as Eric suggests, I was assuming that details would be defined to make
my example work. The context was the challenge to find an example
where, for instance, 'if x:' would work but something more specific like
'if x != 0:' would not. My abstract answer was "number-like class with
division that is not valid for the class's null object". The concrete
answer was an incomplete instantiation of that for matrices. Given the
critique, polynomial division might be a better example since polynomial
multiplication is commutative while both ()(if allowed) and (0,) as
polyomials might well be defined as != to numeric 0. I suspect there
are other algebra classes that work for this or other examples, but it
has been a loooooong time since I took abstract algebra.
Actually I sort of worked too hard ;-).
The decimal module breaks the transitivity of equality!
True
False
True
So if someone wrote 'if x == 0.0:' instead of 'if not x:' (perhaps to
raise an exception with explanation for unusable input), the former
would not work.
tjr
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Antoon Pardon wrote:
>Maybe I'm going to be pedantic here, but I fear that your code won't
>work with matrices. The problem is that multiplication is not
>commutative with matrices. This means that matrices have two divisions
>a right
>and a left division. A far as I know the "/" operator usaly implements
>the left division while solving is done by using a right division.
>>
>So your code will probably fail when applied to matrices.
>work with matrices. The problem is that multiplication is not
>commutative with matrices. This means that matrices have two divisions
>a right
>and a left division. A far as I know the "/" operator usaly implements
>the left division while solving is done by using a right division.
>>
>So your code will probably fail when applied to matrices.
You're right in your general point, but usually division between
matrices isn't defined at all because of this ambiguity. However the
general point can still exist between `solveLeft` and `solveRight`
functions which do something along the lines of a*b**-1 and a**-1*b. A
single `solve`, of course, would choose one of these, and syntactically
it might be quite reasonable to define matrix division that does one of
these and have a single `solve` function that accomplishes it.
>
Therefore, the general point about polymorphism still stands.
matrices isn't defined at all because of this ambiguity. However the
general point can still exist between `solveLeft` and `solveRight`
functions which do something along the lines of a*b**-1 and a**-1*b. A
single `solve`, of course, would choose one of these, and syntactically
it might be quite reasonable to define matrix division that does one of
these and have a single `solve` function that accomplishes it.
>
Therefore, the general point about polymorphism still stands.
my example work. The context was the challenge to find an example
where, for instance, 'if x:' would work but something more specific like
'if x != 0:' would not. My abstract answer was "number-like class with
division that is not valid for the class's null object". The concrete
answer was an incomplete instantiation of that for matrices. Given the
critique, polynomial division might be a better example since polynomial
multiplication is commutative while both ()(if allowed) and (0,) as
polyomials might well be defined as != to numeric 0. I suspect there
are other algebra classes that work for this or other examples, but it
has been a loooooong time since I took abstract algebra.
Actually I sort of worked too hard ;-).
The decimal module breaks the transitivity of equality!
>>import decimal as d
>>z=d.Decimal(' 0.0')
>>z==0
>>z=d.Decimal(' 0.0')
>>z==0
>>z==0.0
>>0==0.0
So if someone wrote 'if x == 0.0:' instead of 'if not x:' (perhaps to
raise an exception with explanation for unusable input), the former
would not work.
tjr
Comment