Thanks for all the help!
One last concern, then *ticket*:
{Yes! I will move all future questions of this kind to the devel/ group!}
In a series of symbolic calculations, if I can redefine the answers to
-is the current representation of a system piecewise?
-is the variable discrete or continuous?
-how do I plan on integrating each part?
-what monotonic function am I using to integrate?
...without changing the structure of the system, I call that cheating.
Signal processing books call it the dirac_delta. I have no problem with
this. It's clever, and it works.
In the context of a particular problem, even a purely mathematical one, we
say its width is zero, and we usually mean it is a pulse of the minimum
width and maximum height for the system in question, and with area 1. Or
maybe I mean it is the derivative of the unit step. I'll probably open the
width beyond zero; I might even change the impulse shape.
Q4) Should the dirac_delta wait until such manipulations are *in general*
defined
to your satisfaction, across the packages; and then inherit these methods
directly? For example, Piecewise() should be updated however it best suits
SAGE, and the dirac_delta abstracted from it (among others).
I am happy to chug away as if these problems don't exist. Great
persoanl project, get under the hood and see how to straddle the packages.
I don't mind making it up.
I *mind* making more work for another person later*; *or implying general
methods by way of a specific implementation (which seems bad).
All corrections to thought process welcomed.
*@kcrisman:* thank you! I will cc you, and get some momentum so there's
something for you to help with.
I seek correction. I haven't had anyone to check my interpretations of
definitions. My approach may appear flighty and naive at first; sometimes
I back all the way up to arithmetic looking for a path into the problem,
and start throwing out what doesn't work. I rely heavily on the method of
exhaustion. Of course I want to know if I'm missing the obvious. You
don't have to go into detail; point me to something, and I'll learn what I
have to, to understand it and self-correct. I'm jumping the gun on
purpose, doing this: Must Learn Faster.
There is a self-congratulatory way of lying to oneself about the world
that is usually deliberate. If I am in error, or perspective-skewed, it is
a *mistake* and I want to know.
K?
Thanks again!
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:15:38 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:07:26 AM UTC-4, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>
>> Slumberland <rkhi...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Okay, this is a perfect place for me to start.
>> > Signed up for a trac account; I'll get it a ticket when that's done.
>> >
>> > I'm new to the entire code base, but should I assign myself to it, use
>> other
>> > trac documentation as a model? Is that okay?
>> > And then ask for assistance when that doesn't work?
>>
>> No need to assign it to yourself. The "assigned to" field is basically
>> meaningless - we don't actually have a lieutenants system with specific
>> people assigned to specific components of Sage, but apparently that was
>> experimented with at some point in the past, and the "assigned to" field
>> is a remnant of that. It is automatically set to a certain person based
>> on what component you choose when making the ticket.
>>
>> If you fix the bug, then make a Mercurial patch as described in the
>> developer manual and upload it to the ticket. Then put your real name in
>> the Author field on the ticket, and set the ticket to "needs_review"
>> status.
>>
>> Feel free to ask for assistance at any time. The best places to do so
>> are on sage-devel (not sage-support please) or in the IRC channel
>> (#sagemath on irc.freenode.net).
>>
>
>
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
