o be indistinguishable, forcing Delta and M to be
> +infinity. Path splitting should definitely happen here. I think delta_z
> should have been smaller than rho_z when you reach this point, so I think
> the code should have bailed before.
> On Monday 22 January 2024 at 03:03:20 UTC-8 Li
I have a proposal for a project I would be willing to mentor (detailed
below for completeness), but I'm unsure about how best to estimate the
length (I did GSoC 2021 but estimates of length weren't around then). The
initial coding would not be too challenging, but the mathematical research
In Sage 9.8 I ran the following code:
R. = QQ[]
f = x*(1^5+z^5) + (x*1*z)^2 - x^4*1*z - 2*1^3*z^3
S = Curve(f).riemann_surface()
S.riemann_matrix()
and got a ValueError occurring inside rigorous_line_integral. This error
doesn't occur if instead for the first line I used "R. =
It is not perhaps easier, but an alternative way that I have used to
calculate orbit decompsitions it to use
from sage.groups.perm_gps.partn_ref.refinement_graphs import get_orbits
This works just by casting your group action as a subset of the permutation
group action on the set. To define
In 9.4 I have got the following incorrect output:
sage: G = PermutationGroup([[2,1,4,3,5],[2,3,4,5,1],[2,4,1,3,5]])
sage: G([1,3,5,4,2]).word_problem(G.gens())
x2^-1*x1^-1*x2*(x2*x1^-1)^2
[['(1,2,3,4,5)', -1], ['(1,2)(3,4)', -1], ['(1,2,3,4,5)', 1],
['((1,2,3,4,5)', 1], ['(1,2)(3,4)', 1]]
building and running on this branch.
On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 11:52:15 AM UTC+1 Linden Disney wrote:
> I might add that the problem started to occur after I had
> edited src/doc/en/reference/references/index.rst to include a new
> reference.
>
> On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 11
I might add that the problem started to occur after I had
edited src/doc/en/reference/references/index.rst to include a new
reference.
On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 11:48:37 AM UTC+1 Linden Disney wrote:
> Was a solution to this ever found? I am working on trac ticket 30698,
> which
Was a solution to this ever found? I am working on trac ticket 30698, which
I have used recently and had the documentation be fine, but since going to
another ticket (31996) I have now run into this error:
[reference] building [html]: targets for 1 source files that are out of date
[reference]
ference I get is
>
> 4*Q0*Q1*Q2^2*Q3^2*Q4^2*(p1 - 42)*(z + 1)*(z - 1)/z
>
> It is surprising to me that this is the same as the above determinant in
> SR, except for the 42. And I get a similar answer if I replace 42 with a
> different constant, or even put in a variable by defin
, 0, -2*Q4, 0]])
C2 = L2 - w*matrix.identity(N)
C2 = C2.det()
D2 = C2*z
display(D2.exponents(), D2.coefficients()[4])
On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 10:41:05 PM UTC Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 10/12/20 8:16 AM, Linden Disney wrote:
> > Attached is a jupyter notebook that runs
As a follow up on this, it seems that sage implements the determinant by
evaluating the characteristic polynomials at 0, and the characteristic
polynomial is calculated by maxima. Is it possible to edit the maxima
source code in sage?
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 1:16:13 PM UTC+1 Linden
Attached is a jupyter notebook that runs Sage 9.1, a (slightly more)
minimal example of a problem that I discovered. When calculating the
determinant of a large (in the sense n>=9 I have currently found) symbolic
matrix the answer is not correct. To see this, run the notebook with
Qsimplify
Thanks, the install has worked, and running ./sage --testall only had three
doctests fail (sage -t --random-seed=0
src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py # 2 doctests failed
sage -t --random-seed=0 src/sage/lfunctions/sympow.py # 3 doctests
failed). Is there a natural way to
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 2:31:35 AM UTC+1 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> Feel free to cc me (tscrim) on any tickets. You can also email me directly
> if you have any questions too.
>
> Best,
> Travis
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 8:46:41 PM UTC+10, Alec Linden
>
upgrading to the
latest version of Sage.
Side note: if you would like to contribute to Sage, the (semi)simple
Lie algebras should probably just return themselves as the derived
subalgebra.
Best,
Travis
On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 7:36:58 AM UTC+10, Linden Disney wrote
On the doc page for Lie subalgebras (
https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/algebras/sage/algebras/lie_algebras/subalgebra.html)
there is an example getting a subalgebra of sl3:
sl3 = LieAlgebra(QQ, cartan_type=['A',2])
D = sl3.derived_subalgebra()
This throws the error
TypeError:
16 matches
Mail list logo
