[sage-devel] factor_padic
Umm.. sage: R.x = QQ[] sage: f = x^3 - 2 sage: f.factor_padic(2) --- type 'exceptions.TypeError' Traceback (most recent call last) /Users/david/sage-2.8.4/ipython console in module() /Users/david/sage-2.8.4/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/rings/ polynomial/polynomial_element_generic.py in factor_padic(self, p, prec) 875 K = Qp(p, prec, type='capped-rel') 876 R = sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring.PolynomialRing(K, names=self.parent().variable_name()) -- 877 return R(self).factor(absprec = prec) 878 879 def list(self): type 'exceptions.TypeError': factor() got an unexpected keyword argument 'absprec' This happens on the current version of sage on sage.math, it also happens on sage 2.8.5 on my machine at home. But that's exactly the example code in the doctest for factor_padic! Why isn't it failing doctests? david --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: factor_padic
The reason is that that doctest has sage.: David On 10/18/07, David Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm.. sage: R.x = QQ[] sage: f = x^3 - 2 sage: f.factor_padic(2) --- type 'exceptions.TypeError' Traceback (most recent call last) /Users/david/sage-2.8.4/ipython console in module() /Users/david/sage-2.8.4/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/rings/ polynomial/polynomial_element_generic.py in factor_padic(self, p, prec) 875 K = Qp(p, prec, type='capped-rel') 876 R = sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring.PolynomialRing(K, names=self.parent().variable_name()) -- 877 return R(self).factor(absprec = prec) 878 879 def list(self): type 'exceptions.TypeError': factor() got an unexpected keyword argument 'absprec' This happens on the current version of sage on sage.math, it also happens on sage 2.8.5 on my machine at home. But that's exactly the example code in the doctest for factor_padic! Why isn't it failing doctests? david --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: factor_padic
Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good idea. David On 10/18/07, David Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arrggghhh. When you do code inspection via factor_padic?, the period apparently gets filtered out. That's not very helpful somehow. david On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:37 AM, David Roe wrote: The reason is that that doctest has sage.: David On 10/18/07, David Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm.. sage: R.x = QQ[] sage: f = x^3 - 2 sage: f.factor_padic(2) --- type 'exceptions.TypeError' Traceback (most recent call last) /Users/david/sage- 2.8.4/ipython console in module() /Users/david/sage-2.8.4/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/rings/ polynomial/polynomial_element_generic.py in factor_padic(self, p, prec) 875 K = Qp(p, prec, type='capped-rel') 876 R = sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring.PolynomialRing(K, names=self.parent().variable_name()) -- 877 return R(self).factor(absprec = prec) 878 879 def list(self): type 'exceptions.TypeError': factor() got an unexpected keyword argument 'absprec' This happens on the current version of sage on sage.math, it also happens on sage 2.8.5 on my machine at home. But that's exactly the example code in the doctest for factor_padic! Why isn't it failing doctests? david --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: factor_padic
Arrggghhh. When you do code inspection via factor_padic?, the period apparently gets filtered out. That's not very helpful somehow. david On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:37 AM, David Roe wrote: The reason is that that doctest has sage.: David On 10/18/07, David Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm.. sage: R.x = QQ[] sage: f = x^3 - 2 sage: f.factor_padic(2) -- -- --- type 'exceptions.TypeError' Traceback (most recent call last) /Users/david/sage- 2.8.4/ipython console in module() /Users/david/sage-2.8.4/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/rings/ polynomial/polynomial_element_generic.py in factor_padic(self, p, prec) 875 K = Qp(p, prec, type='capped-rel') 876 R = sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring.PolynomialRing(K, names=self.parent().variable_name()) -- 877 return R(self).factor(absprec = prec) 878 879 def list(self): type 'exceptions.TypeError': factor() got an unexpected keyword argument 'absprec' This happens on the current version of sage on sage.math, it also happens on sage 2.8.5 on my machine at home. But that's exactly the example code in the doctest for factor_padic! Why isn't it failing doctests? david --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Enhancing the SymbolicEquation class
William wrote:
On 10/17/07, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about replace_right instead of change_right.
How about
eqn.expand() # does it to both sides
eqn.expand('right') # does it to the right
eqn.expand('left') # does it to the right
Basically, every function valid on a symbolic expression would be
valid on a symbolic equation, and take an extra (optional) parameter
of what side to do it to. This could probably be done automatically.
It would return a new instance.
I think I like that idea, though I would like to hear from other
people, especially Ted to see what they think.
I have been experimenting with making a subclass of SymbolicEquation
called MutableSymbolicEquation but I like this approach better because
it is simpler.
Ted
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: factor_padic
On 10/18/07, David Roe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good idea. There were far more complaints when it did show up, since people got confused by it, though it was a typo, couldn't paste it into sessions, etc. I think it should be replaced by sage: f.factor_padic() # not tested i.e., putting not tested as a comment has the same effect as sage.:. I wrote thesage. notation before there were doctesting comment modifiers. Does this seem ok with everybody? Comment modifiers are definitely much clearer than sage.:. David On 10/18/07, David Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arrggghhh. When you do code inspection via factor_padic?, the period apparently gets filtered out. That's not very helpful somehow. david On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:37 AM, David Roe wrote: The reason is that that doctest has sage.: David On 10/18/07, David Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm.. sage: R.x = QQ[] sage: f = x^3 - 2 sage: f.factor_padic(2) --- type 'exceptions.TypeError' Traceback (most recent call last) /Users/david/sage- 2.8.4/ipython console in module() /Users/david/sage-2.8.4/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/rings/ polynomial/polynomial_element_generic.py in factor_padic(self, p, prec) 875 K = Qp(p, prec, type='capped-rel') 876 R = sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring.PolynomialRing(K, names=self.parent().variable_name()) -- 877 return R(self).factor(absprec = prec) 878 879 def list(self): type 'exceptions.TypeError': factor() got an unexpected keyword argument 'absprec' This happens on the current version of sage on sage.math, it also happens on sage 2.8.5 on my machine at home. But that's exactly the example code in the doctest for factor_padic! Why isn't it failing doctests? david -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: factor_padic
On Oct 18, 2007, at 12:21 PM, William Stein wrote: On 10/18/07, David Roe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good idea. There were far more complaints when it did show up, since people got confused by it, though it was a typo, couldn't paste it into sessions, etc. I think it should be replaced by sage: f.factor_padic() # not tested i.e., putting not tested as a comment has the same effect as sage.:. I wrote thesage. notation before there were doctesting comment modifiers. Does this seem ok with everybody? Comment modifiers are definitely much clearer than sage.:. Sounds better to me. David On 10/18/07, David Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arrggghhh. When you do code inspection via factor_padic?, the period apparently gets filtered out. That's not very helpful somehow. david On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:37 AM, David Roe wrote: The reason is that that doctest has sage.: David On 10/18/07, David Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm.. sage: R.x = QQ[] sage: f = x^3 - 2 sage: f.factor_padic(2) - --- --- type 'exceptions.TypeError' Traceback (most recent call last) /Users/david/sage- 2.8.4/ipython console in module() /Users/david/sage-2.8.4/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/rings/ polynomial/polynomial_element_generic.py in factor_padic(self, p, prec) 875 K = Qp(p, prec, type='capped-rel') 876 R = sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring.PolynomialRing(K, names=self.parent().variable_name()) -- 877 return R(self).factor(absprec = prec) 878 879 def list(self): type 'exceptions.TypeError': factor() got an unexpected keyword argument 'absprec' This happens on the current version of sage on sage.math, it also happens on sage 2.8.5 on my machine at home. But that's exactly the example code in the doctest for factor_padic! Why isn't it failing doctests? david -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: plot margins
Oops, forget the patch! Now it is attached.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 04:09:04PM -0400, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
A couple of days ago I wrote to sage-support complaining about margins on
plots
-- I think they are too big. Ironically, it seems that vanilla matplotlib is
even worse for this in some respects, but sage does a couple of funny things
that I'd like a plotting guru to look at. It seems there is a couple of
rather
arbitrary adjustments to min/max parameters. I think that each one of these
adjustments should be reconsidered. I attached a patch file which fixes my
most
immediate gripes -- I don't necessarily mean it as a patch to go upstream
yet,
but to generate discussion with the relevant person (Alex Clemesha?) to come
up
with a correct fix.
(Warning: Slight rant ahead) I agree that the results might be pleasing to
the
eye when you are just throwing up a quick graph on screen, but I abhor
arbitrary
adjustments when I'm trying to make publication quality .eps files. For
myself,
the publication quality graphics is the dominant use of a CAS plotting
ability.
Therefore, I think this needs to be very well supported mode. In this case,
you
are probably using latex and latex makes it's own margin around a figure. To
make an extra margin messes with the all-knowing-wisdom of latex. I'm
probably
preaching to the choir in this paragraph, but I've been seriously aggravated
at
every graphics engine I've used on similar points to these. I'm hoping sage
will be my panacea -- and it's looking likely!
--
Joel
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
diff -r 9241a4ebc628 sage/plot/plot.py
--- a/sage/plot/plot.py Mon Oct 15 23:04:04 2007 -0700
+++ b/sage/plot/plot.py Thu Oct 18 15:48:28 2007 -0400
@@ -681,10 +681,10 @@ class Graphics(SageObject):
ymax = 2*y
ymin = 0
-xmin -= 0.1*(xmax-xmin)
-xmax += 0.1*(xmax-xmin)
-ymin -= 0.1*(ymax-ymin)
-ymax += 0.1*(ymax-ymin)
+#xmin -= 0.1*(xmax-xmin)
+#xmax += 0.1*(xmax-xmin)
+#ymin -= 0.1*(ymax-ymin)
+#ymax += 0.1*(ymax-ymin)
return xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax
@@ -733,7 +733,8 @@ class Graphics(SageObject):
#The line below takes away the excessive whitespace around
#images. ('figsize' and 'dpi' still work as expected):
-figure.subplots_adjust(left=0.04, bottom=0.04, right=0.96, top=0.96)
+#figure.subplots_adjust(left=0.04, bottom=0.04, right=0.96, top=0.96)
+figure.subplots_adjust(left=0, bottom=0, right=1, top=1)
#the incoming subplot instance
subplot = sub
@@ -775,8 +776,10 @@ class Graphics(SageObject):
if not (contour or plotfield or matrixplot): #the plot is a 'regular'
plot
if frame: #add the frame axes
xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax = self._prepare_axes(xmin, xmax, ymin,
ymax)
-axmin, axmax = xmin - 0.04*abs(xmax - xmin), xmax +
0.04*abs(xmax - xmin)
-aymin, aymax = ymin - 0.04*abs(ymax - ymin), ymax +
0.04*abs(ymax - ymin)
+#axmin, axmax = xmin - 0.04*abs(xmax - xmin), xmax +
0.04*abs(xmax - xmin)
+#aymin, aymax = ymin - 0.04*abs(ymax - ymin), ymax +
0.04*abs(ymax - ymin)
+axmin, axmax = xmin, xmax
+aymin, aymax = ymin, ymax
subplot.set_xlim([axmin, axmax])
subplot.set_ylim([aymin, aymax])
#add a frame to the plot and possibly 'axes_with_no_ticks'
[sage-devel] plot margins
A couple of days ago I wrote to sage-support complaining about margins on plots -- I think they are too big. Ironically, it seems that vanilla matplotlib is even worse for this in some respects, but sage does a couple of funny things that I'd like a plotting guru to look at. It seems there is a couple of rather arbitrary adjustments to min/max parameters. I think that each one of these adjustments should be reconsidered. I attached a patch file which fixes my most immediate gripes -- I don't necessarily mean it as a patch to go upstream yet, but to generate discussion with the relevant person (Alex Clemesha?) to come up with a correct fix. (Warning: Slight rant ahead) I agree that the results might be pleasing to the eye when you are just throwing up a quick graph on screen, but I abhor arbitrary adjustments when I'm trying to make publication quality .eps files. For myself, the publication quality graphics is the dominant use of a CAS plotting ability. Therefore, I think this needs to be very well supported mode. In this case, you are probably using latex and latex makes it's own margin around a figure. To make an extra margin messes with the all-knowing-wisdom of latex. I'm probably preaching to the choir in this paragraph, but I've been seriously aggravated at every graphics engine I've used on similar points to these. I'm hoping sage will be my panacea -- and it's looking likely! -- Joel --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Enhancing the SymbolicEquation class
On 10/18/07, Ted Kosan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been experimenting with making a subclass of SymbolicEquation called MutableSymbolicEquation but I like this approach better because it is simpler. OK. By the way, subclassing SymbolicEquation by MutableSymbolicEquation would be bad because it breaks the is a relationship that subclasses must have. In general, for any classes Foo and Bar, if we have class Foo: ... class Bar(Foo): ... Then in some conceptual sense any instance of a Bar had better be a Foo, or you'll run into all kinds of trouble. Every time I break or see this rule broken, it leads to major problems down the line. William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Fwd: cimport of extension classes?
-- Forwarded message -- From: Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Oct 18, 2007 1:19 PM Subject: Re: cimport of extension classes? To: sage-newbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Sage team, sorry for asking my question: meanwhile i found the answer in another sage documentation. Rather than - in foo.pyx: cdef public class Foo: lots of definitions - in foo.pxd: cdef extern class Foo - in Module.pyx: i had to do - in foo.pyx: cdef class Foo: lots of def's, but no cdef's - in foo.pxd: cdef class Foo: cdef's, but no def's and then cimport foo lots of code referring to foo.Foo works perfectly. Yours Simon -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: plot margins
On 10/18/07, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A couple of days ago I wrote to sage-support complaining about margins on plots -- I think they are too big. Ironically, it seems that vanilla matplotlib is even worse for this in some respects, but sage does a couple of funny things that I'd like a plotting guru to look at. It seems there is a couple of rather arbitrary adjustments to min/max parameters. Yes, it is true that they are arbitrary in the sense that maybe tweaking them a little this way or that might give 'better' results in certain cases, but they are there as a result of a lot of 'testing' (read: making tons of plots) and taking the best values that 'in most cases' gives visually useful and good looking plots. I think that each one of these adjustments should be reconsidered. I attached a patch file which fixes my most immediate gripes -- I don't necessarily mean it as a patch to go upstream yet, but to generate discussion with the relevant person (Alex Clemesha?) to come up with a correct fix. Thanks for bringing this up and working on it ... so maybe the best possible way to 'fix' this problem is to expose everything single possible parameter to the user (with given defaults of course), and then in most cases plots would look nice, but for making very exact plots, a user has the option to do a lot of tweaking. (Warning: Slight rant ahead) I agree that the results might be pleasing to the eye when you are just throwing up a quick graph on screen, but I abhor arbitrary adjustments when I'm trying to make publication quality .eps files. Agreed. For myself, the publication quality graphics is the dominant use of a CAS plotting ability. Therefore, I think this needs to be very well supported mode. In this case, you are probably using latex and latex makes it's own margin around a figure. To make an extra margin messes with the all-knowing-wisdom of latex. I'm probably preaching to the choir in this paragraph, but I've been seriously aggravated at every graphics engine I've used on similar points to these. I'm hoping sage will be my panacea -- and it's looking likely! I'm considering doing a semi-major clean up of the plotting functionality so please jot down improvements that you (or anyone) think could be made. Alex -- Joel --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: factor_padic
On Oct 18, 2007, at 12:21 PM, William Stein wrote: On 10/18/07, David Roe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good idea. There were far more complaints when it did show up, since people got confused by it, though it was a typo, couldn't paste it into sessions, etc. I think it should be replaced by sage: f.factor_padic() # not tested i.e., putting not tested as a comment has the same effect as sage.:. I wrote thesage. notation before there were doctesting comment modifiers. Does this seem ok with everybody? Comment modifiers are definitely much clearer than sage.:. +1 Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large Director Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals. Well, except the weasel. - Homer J Simpson --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: plot margins
On Oct 18, 2:00 pm, alex clemesha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm considering doing a semi-major clean up of the plotting functionality so please jot down improvements that you (or anyone) think could be made. See TRAC #924 for a bug-fix I would like. (I reported this in person at SD4, but I guess we all forgot about it until your message reminded me.) Carl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: plot margins
On Thursday 18 October 2007 17:00, alex clemesha wrote: A couple of days ago I wrote to sage-support complaining about margins on plots -- I think they are too big. Ironically, it seems that vanilla matplotlib is even worse for this in some respects, but sage does a couple of funny things that I'd like a plotting guru to look at. It seems there is a couple of rather arbitrary adjustments to min/max parameters. Yes, it is true that they are arbitrary in the sense that maybe tweaking them a little this way or that might give 'better' results in certain cases, but they are there as a result of a lot of 'testing' (read: making tons of plots) and taking the best values that 'in most cases' gives visually useful and good looking plots. Ok, I wasn't sure how much of this was thought about and how much was oh, it looks good to me kind of decisions. I think the thing that really put me off about it was that I had to change two different places in the source to get rid of these extra margins and then there were a few other places that looked like they might need changing if I wanted to get rid of the margins for other styles of plotting. It seemed like all that should be a bit more unified. Aside from making the code look more complicated, this spreading out of the margin logic might make exposing options to the user very nasty. I'm in the midst of remaking some graphics that I made in mathematica about 5 years ago. Sage goes much better for this as a real programming environment (for my own wildly biased value of real). I'll try and document all the gotcha's I find. -- Joel -- Joel --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
