I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage throws
various questions generated by maxima at me, about whether variables
and certain terms are positive, zero, or negative. Some of them can be
answered a priori by
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage throws
various questions generated by maxima at me, about whether variables
and certain
William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage throws
various questions generated by maxima at me, about whether
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
Typically, when I want to solve a complicated
On Oct 1, 11:36 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage throws
various questions
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 1, 11:36 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
Typically, when I want
On Oct 1, 9:33 am, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be hard to write a routine, which answers all of maxima's
questions with all possible answers and creates a new solution branch
for each answer?
I attempted, some time ago, to automate the question-answer
business; the
On Oct 1, 5:58 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
[Snip]
Still, this idea is worth trying for others to play with. Especially
if it were first implemented with a 1 or 2 level recursion, it would
help out with a lot of integrals and limits which just need to know
x,,==0. How efficient
Hi Robert,
This sounds great. Could this package be used from within sage, or would
it have to be run on a separate installation of maxima? If it runs from
within sage, it would probably already solve part of the problem!
Cheers,
Stan
Robert Dodier wrote:
On Oct 1, 9:33 am, Stan
On Oct 1, 1:24 pm, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Robert,
This sounds great. Could this package be used from within sage, or would
it have to be run on a separate installation of maxima? If it runs from
within sage, it would probably already solve part of the problem!
Stan Schymanski wrote:
On Oct 1, 5:58 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
[Snip]
Still, this idea is worth trying for others to play with. Especially
if it were first implemented with a 1 or 2 level recursion, it would
help out with a lot of integrals and limits which just need to
I think that some of the suggestions here pretty much miss the mark.
If you want to have Maxima do the same thing as Mathematica's Reduce
program
(and, by the way I think this would be good, especially since
Mathematica's Reduce
program seems to have been improved substantially so it is a store-
On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:43 AM, rjf wrote:
I think that some of the suggestions here pretty much miss the mark.
If you want to have Maxima do the same thing as Mathematica's Reduce
program
(and, by the way I think this would be good, especially since
Mathematica's Reduce
program seems to
Jason Grout wrote:
Can you tell us what wv, wv1, wb, wb1, veloc, mort, lwat, jbiom, rwat,
and av are?
Thanks,
Jason
It's a water and biomass balance model. Here is the full code, FYI:
dwaterv = (av p - esv - etv - qvb + qbv);
dwaterb = (ab p - esb + qvb - qbv);
ab = 1 - av;
qvb =
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:11 PM, rjf wrote:
If you want to look at possible definitions of solve that have been
refined more recently than Maxima's solve, you can look at
Mathematica's
Solve, NSolve, RSolve, Reduce, and maybe some others like Eliminate.
Maxima's solve dates to 1971, but there
The notation x = ZZ['x'].gen() (etc) looks really weird to beginners.
So it is worth pointing out that x=polygen(ZZ), x=polygen(RR) etc do
the same and are less obfuscatory.
John
2009/9/26 Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:11 PM, rjf wrote:
If you want to
And pi can't be represented by QQbar at all!
Thanks for the correction! What I meant was a transcendental extension over QQ.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
Hi Niels,
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:45:37 +0200
x x niels.lub...@gmail.com wrote:
Sage is a great project in my opinion, and i hope to contribute, when
i am more familiar with sage and python. I am not sure whether this
belongs to sage-support or sage-devel, since i don't understand the
Hi Burcin,
Thanks for the explanation!
Symbolic ring is an unfortunate name. It doesn't mean much from the
mathematical point of view. It's just where all the symbolic stuff
live in Sage. Maybe we should call it symbolic parent.
I agree that the naming is unfortunate. I think it would be a
Sorry if i am stating the obvious here, the reason is that i am trying
to explain why i think it should be (either implicit or explicit)
clear over which algebraic structure is computed.
Generally it is -- try parent(foo) or foo.parent() to see what
algebraic structure is in play.
sage:
Sage is a great project in my opinion, and i hope to contribute, when
i am more familiar with sage and python. I am not sure whether this
belongs to sage-support or sage-devel, since i don't understand the
architecture, in particular relating to the Symbolic expressions.
That being said, i
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if there is a way to get at where coefficients of
elements in SR come from; they all just become symbolic expressions.
Even with the .coeffs() method, they still end up coming out as
symbolic
On Sep 19, 11:41 am, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if there is a way to get at where coefficients of
elements in SR come from; they all just become symbolic expressions.
Even with the
Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)? ...
sage:solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x) ...
I think it should at least be clear over what ring the user wants to
solve, then it is also clear which method should be used.
* If the coefficients are algebraic/transcendental over QQ then
On Sep 17, 5:01 pm, Dirk dirk.lau...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry that I misunderstood the purpose of the question. But I would
like to re-make one of my points.
sage: solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x)
[x == -0.0588115172555,
x == (-1.33109991788 + 1.52241655184*I),
x == (-1.33109991788 -
On Sep 18, 9:42 am, niels niels.lub...@gmail.com wrote:
Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)? ...
sage:solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x) ...
I think it should at least be clear over what ring the user wants to
solve, then it is also clear which method should be used.
*
On Sep 18, 2009, at 6:42 AM, niels wrote:
Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)? ...
sage:solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x) ...
I think it should at least be clear over what ring the user wants to
solve, then it is also clear which method should be used.
* If the
For a frustrated user because of precisely this issue, see
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/6407896aab6a52cc/bfb4e85815ef94a3?show_docid=bfb4e85815ef94a3
. I now think we should definitely change to having to_poly_solve as
an option, but not default, even if we
My 2 cents here:
why do we keep the numerical solve function with a completely
different name? I know that find_root or roots make sense, but
wouldn't just be much better to name them solve_numerical, or
anything like putting a postfix after the word solve?
I don't know whether this is generally
Maurizio wrote:
My 2 cents here:
why do we keep the numerical solve function with a completely
different name? I know that find_root or roots make sense, but
wouldn't just be much better to name them solve_numerical, or
anything like putting a postfix after the word solve?
I don't know
Great idea. We can make an alias:
solve_numerical=find_root
Yes, that would be a great idea. I can make that part of #6642.
Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)?
Yes, but it has different syntax than the other solves - namely, you
must specify an interval
Sorry that I misunderstood the purpose of the question. But I would
like to re-make one of my points.
sage: solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x)
[x == -0.0588115172555,
x == (-1.33109991788 + 1.52241655184*I),
x == (-1.33109991788 - 1.52241655184*I),
x == (1.36050567904 + 1.5188087221*I),
x ==
Sorry, I think you both misunderstood my question :) If I was having
trouble in that sense, I would have posted on sage-support.
My question is, what behavior should Sage ALLOW from solve? I am in
the midst of fixing some solve behavior caused by the Maxima upgrade,
and want someone else's
On Sep 15, 9:27 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
We have some inconsistency in solve.
sage: solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x)
[x == -0.0588115172555,
x == (-1.33109991788 + 1.52241655184*I),
x == (-1.33109991788 - 1.52241655184*I),
x == (1.36050567904 + 1.5188087221*I),
x ==
Dirk wrote:
By the way, the numerical answers you got are very bad, but Maxima is
not a numerical analysis package. The way to get good numerical roots
is:
sage: pari('x^5+x^3+17*[x + (0.0588115223184494 + 0.E-38*I), 1; x +
(-1.36050567903502 +
1.51880872209965*I), 1; x +
35 matches
Mail list logo
