[sage-support] Re: Drawing Konigsberg graph
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Philippe Saade wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Philippe Saade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all ! Is there a simple way to plot a graph with more than 1 edge going from a given vertice to another, as in the konigsberg graph ? (http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/bridges.htm) Thanks ! Philippe i think this closes my question... http://groups.google.com/group/networkx-discuss/browse_thread/thread/2ba4186e904351f9 Actually, this issue has come up in Sage before. Here is the feature request: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3541 From that ticket, we find the following: http://wiki.wstein.org/2008/480a/theprojects?action=AttachFiledo=gettarget=saunders.html Thanks, Jason Thanks for pointing saunders' code to me ! I had to change a line of code to make it work with Sage 3.1.1 : G = Graph(g, loops=True, multiedges=True) instead of G = Graph(g, loops=True, multiple_edges=True) in the 6th cell. Maybe i can give you back the .sws file ? (attaching to a mail ? is it OK on devel/support list ?) Philippe --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Drawing Konigsberg graph
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Philippe Saade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for pointing saunders' code to me ! I had to change a line of code to make it work with Sage 3.1.1 : G = Graph(g, loops=True, multiedges=True) instead of G = Graph(g, loops=True, multiple_edges=True) in the 6th cell. Maybe i can give you back the .sws file ? (attaching to a mail ? is it OK on devel/support list ?) Philippe I missed one point : the graph has a loop and it is on the plot but the two edges going from node 0 to node 1 are shown as one... Philippe --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] maple from sage on mac os
I tried this again...
--
| SAGE Version 3.1.1, Release Date: 2008-08-17 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
--
sage: maple('8+3')
sage: maple('8+3')
read /Users/edgar/.sage//temp/cpe_75_187_61_115.columbus.res.rr.com/
6804/
sage: maple('8+3')
11
sage: maple('8+3')
sage: maple('8+3')
read /Users/edgar/.sage//temp/cpe_75_187_61_115.columbus.res.rr.com/
6804/
sage: maple('8+3')
sage1
sage: maple('8+3')
sage: maple('8+3')
read /Users/edgar/.sage//temp/cpe_75_187_61_115.columbus.res.rr.com/
6804/
sage: maple('8+3')
sage2
sage: maple('8+3')
sage: maple('8+3')
read /Users/edgar/.sage//temp/cpe_75_187_61_115.columbus.res.rr.com/
6804/
sage: maple('8+3')
sage9
sage:
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: square of an inequality
By the way, I just looked at Wester's article (briefly), and it seems as if he missed inequalities. Such things, as, say, x+y=3, x=0, y=0 for integer x and y, should be a part of the standard test, I think. [...] Can SAGE do that? What would it mean to do that? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: square of an inequality
By the way, I just looked at Wester's article (briefly), and it seems as
if
he missed inequalities. Such things, as, say, x+y=3, x=0, y=0 for
integer
x and y, should be a part of the standard test, I think. [...]
Can SAGE do that?
I meant to solve. The answer should be either a list of points, {x=0,y=0},
{x=0,y=1} etc. - or their convex hull. That gives feasible points for
integer (linear or convex) programming problems.
I posted about that on Mapleprimes (Kindergarten). Maple can't do that using
isolve.
Alec
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Plotting jacobi function fails
I don't know the cause of your problem but the following works for me sage: f1 = lambda x: jacobi(sn,x,1) sage: f2 = lambda x: jacobi(sn,x,2) sage: plot(f1,(x,-3,3)) sage: plot(f2,(x,-3,3)) and hopefully is at least a workaround. On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Plotting jacobi(sn,x,2) doesn't work, although plotting jacobi(sn,x,1) does work. sage: parent(plot(jacobi(sn,x,1),(x,-3,3))) class 'sage.plot.plot.Graphics' sage: parent(plot(jacobi(sn,x,2),(x,-3,3))) Callable function ring with arguments (x,) Regards, JM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] showing step by step work
Just curious, is there any support for, or any plans to support step by step problem solving? I'm thinking of this tool: http://calc101.com/webMathematica/derivatives.jsp Which shows you that it first used the chain rule, then took the second derivative, then used the quotient rule, etc. It might have useful applications in edu. Thanks, Brian --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: showing step by step work
No, but you're welcome to implement it. Maybe implement it in SymPy which is written in pure Python and included in Sage. On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just curious, is there any support for, or any plans to support step by step problem solving? I'm thinking of this tool: http://calc101.com/webMathematica/derivatives.jsp Which shows you that it first used the chain rule, then took the second derivative, then used the quotient rule, etc. It might have useful applications in edu. Thanks, Brian --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Bugs in DiGraph ?
I now get it, when I said {1:{1:'hola'}... it understood {1:
{1:list('hola') and hence treated hola as a list.
I don't recall reading that one should input as a list if one selects
multiedges, at least I don't recall seeing an example with that
notation. This is, I think a little bit of a tricky thing, since the
notation works for regular graphs.
At least I know what to do now. But I don't know if the behavior here
is intended. Probably it works like that to have a short way of
entering several edges with one level. Or the authors did not intend
it to work that way, in which case it could be fixed.
One example with that behavior in the documentation would be great.
Thanks a bunch.
-Adrian.
On Aug 22, 9:55 pm, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Grout wrote:
adrian wrote:
Now, there is another problem:
Say, I want to define a multigraph with selfloops, and edge labels..
One way to do this is:
import networkx
G=networkx.XDiGraph(selfloops=True,multiedges=True)
for i in range(3): G.add_node(i)
for i in [(1,1,'hola'),(1,1,'hi'),(1,2,'two'),(1,2,'dos'),
(2,1,'one')]: G.add_edge(i)
G=DiGraph(G)
Now, I would be tempted to just do the following:
G=DiGraph({1:{1:'hola',1:'hi',2:'two',2:'dos'},2:{1:'one'}},
loops=True, multiedges=True)
or trying
import networkx
G=networkx.XDiGraph({1:{1:'hola',1:'hi',2:'two',2:'dos'},2:{1:'one'}},
selfloops=True, multiedges=True)
But in each case I get:
G.edges()
(1, 1, 'h'), (1, 1, 'i'), (1, 2, 'd'), (1, 2, 'o'), (1, 2, 's'), (2,
1,
'o'), (2, 1, 'n'), (2, 1, 'e')]
Which is not as intended for two reasons: One is that the labels are
wrong, and the other one is that it created three edges from 1 to 2.
Any help?
It looks like it is creating an edge for every character in every other
label, which I think is a bug. I've created a ticket to track the
status of this bug:http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3928
Thanks for reporting it.
As Robert Miller noted on the ticket, there is nothing wrong going on
here. The correct way to create the graph that you want is:
sage: G=DiGraph({1:{1:['hola','hi'], 2:['two','dos']},2:{1:['one']}},
loops=True, multiedges=True)
sage: G.edges()
[(1, 1, 'hi'), (1, 1, 'hola'), (1, 2, 'dos'), (1, 2, 'two'), (2, 1, 'one')]
Thanks,
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Latex of a product of polynomials with simplification
Hi,
Consider polynomials
f = 1 +t + 2*t^2
g=1+t
over R.t = PolynomialRing(GF(7));
How to get the Latex expression of fg without expanding the product ?
ie (1 + t + 2 t^{2}) (1+t) .
latex( fg) returns
2 t^{3} + 3 t^{2} + 2 t + 1
Thanks in advance for any assistance!
I am using Sage 3.0,6.
Shing
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Latex of a product of polynomials with simplification
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Shing Hing Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Consider polynomials
f = 1 +t + 2*t^2
g=1+t
over R.t = PolynomialRing(GF(7));
How to get the Latex expression of fg without expanding the product ?
ie (1 + t + 2 t^{2}) (1+t) .
You can't do this in sage currently unless you
make t a symbolic variable:
t= var('t')
But then you can't work over GF(7).
latex( fg) returns
2 t^{3} + 3 t^{2} + 2 t + 1
Thanks in advance for any assistance!
I am using Sage 3.0,6.
Shing
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Hypergeometric sum
I came across this example in a recent thread in Maple newsgroup. Here is the link, http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.maple/browse_thread/thread/65248f258f5522ad?hl=en# Another link, to Mathematica newsgroup, http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_thread/thread/b84ac9c2a48f1bc1?hl=en# Now, compare 3 different approaches to customer support - in Maplesoft (none), here (some discussion, but without Maxima or SAGE code, or a workaround), and in Wolfram Research (Devendra Kapadia responded very nicely, the problem was addressed, and a workaround was suggested). And the winner is - Wolfram Research. Alec --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Latex of a product of polynomials with simplification
How to get the Latex expression of fg without expanding the product ?
ie (1 + t + 2 t^{2}) (1+t) .
Can't one use the Factorization class to do this? I tried
fg = Factorization([(f,1), (g,1)])
and then you can print fg to latex. (I guess the point is that the
Factorization class doesn't enforce that the factors are irreducible.)
David
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Hypergeometric sum
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Alec Mihailovs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I came across this example in a recent thread in Maple newsgroup. Here is the link, http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.maple/browse_thread/thread/65248f258f5522ad?hl=en# Another link, to Mathematica newsgroup, http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/browse_thread/thread/b84ac9c2a48f1bc1?hl=en# Now, compare 3 different approaches to customer support - in Maplesoft (none), here (some discussion, but without Maxima or SAGE code, or a workaround), and in Wolfram Research (Devendra Kapadia responded very nicely, the problem was addressed, and a workaround was suggested). And the winner is - Wolfram Research. Alec What is your point? -- William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Hypergeometric sum
What is your point? Actually, I meant that more about Maplesoft. Sage support is usually good in this group, just wasn't very good in this thread. Alec --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Latex of a product of polynomials with simplification
David's solution is very clever -- but this is simpler:
'('+latex(f)+')('+latex(g)+')'
Admittedly rather inelegent!
John
2008/8/23 Shing Hing Man [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Consider polynomials
f = 1 +t + 2*t^2
g=1+t
over R.t = PolynomialRing(GF(7));
How to get the Latex expression of fg without expanding the product ?
ie (1 + t + 2 t^{2}) (1+t) .
latex( fg) returns
2 t^{3} + 3 t^{2} + 2 t + 1
Thanks in advance for any assistance!
I am using Sage 3.0,6.
Shing
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Hypergeometric sum
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Alec Mihailovs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is your point? Actually, I meant that more about Maplesoft. Sage support is usually good in this group, just wasn't very good in this thread. I am sure many people have tried to fix your problem. Certainly I did, I tried it in SymPy to see if it's easy for us to fix it, I found a bug, I reported a bug: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1028 and concluded these kind of things are too difficult yet and put it low in my priorities list, as there are more urgent things to fix. Mathematica is much further, so it's easy for them to fix it. For other things, like limits, SymPy has enough code for this already, so when a failing limit was reported, I fixed that within hours: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1016 And as to Sage, it's quite difficult to fix things like this, but I think in a year (or sooner!) Sage will have enough code for these things in Python/Cython, so that it's easy to fix it. Ondrej --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Hypergeometric sum
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Alec Mihailovs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is your point? Actually, I meant that more about Maplesoft. Sage support is usually good in this group, just wasn't very good in this thread. I am sure many people have tried to fix your problem. Certainly I did, I tried it in SymPy to see if it's easy for us to fix it, I found a bug, I reported a bug: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1028 and concluded these kind of things are too difficult yet and put it low in my priorities list, as there are more urgent things to fix. Yes, and in Sage the above is currently nearly impossible because basically none of us know lisp. When Sage uses sympy a lot more for this sort of thing, then things will be different. Mathematica is much further, so it's easy for them to fix it. For other things, like limits, SymPy has enough code for this already, so when a failing limit was reported, I fixed that within hours: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1016 Thanks! I wondered about that since I don't remember you responding to my email about that. Thanks again for fixing it! And as to Sage, it's quite difficult to fix things like this, but I think in a year (or sooner!) Sage will have enough code for these things in Python/Cython, so that it's easy to fix it. Ondrej -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Hypergeometric sum
Ondrej and William, Thank you, it's nice to know about that. Alec --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Latex of a product of polynomials with simplification
Thanks for all the replies!
Shing
On Aug 23, 9:28 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM, daveloeffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to get the Latex expression of fg without expanding the product ?
ie (1 + t + 2 t^{2}) (1+t) .
Can't one use the Factorization class to do this? I tried
fg = Factorization([(f,1), (g,1)])
and then you can print fg to latex. (I guess the point is that the
Factorization class doesn't enforce that the factors are irreducible.)
Cool, that's a great idea!
William
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Hypergeometric sum
Actually, I meant that more about Maplesoft. Sage support is usually good in this group, just wasn't very good in this thread. I am sure many people have tried to fix your problem. Certainly I did, I tried it in SymPy to see if it's easy for us to fix it, I found a bug, I reported a bug: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1028 and concluded these kind of things are too difficult yet and put it low in my priorities list, as there are more urgent things to fix. Yes, and in Sage the above is currently nearly impossible because basically none of us know lisp. When Sage uses sympy a lot more for this sort of thing, then things will be different. Mathematica is much further, so it's easy for them to fix it. For other things, like limits, SymPy has enough code for this already, so when a failing limit was reported, I fixed that within hours: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1016 Thanks! I wondered about that since I don't remember you responding to my email about that. Thanks again for fixing it! Actually, I think you were emailing me about this one: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1031 I started fixing it at euroscipy, but got distracted by other things, I even forgot to report it. So I created the issue now and then was curious how much time I need to fix it. As you can see from the issue, it took me exactly 18 minutes and the patch is just a few lines here and there (basically just implementing a series expansion for the floor function). But anyway, those are things that anyone can easily fix, so my own highest priority is to make sympy a lot faster, so that it is competitive with mathematica in terms of speed. As Linus says, the program needs to do 90% of the job for most people, only then people will start fixing the rest 10%. Ondrej --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] parametric_plot3d and **kwds
Hi Does anybody know where the **kwds are defined in Sage for the command parametric_plot3d (not counting those given by the definition parametric_plot3d(f, urange, vrange=['4ti2-20061025', 'R-2.6.0', 'atlas-3.7.37', 'atlas-3.8.1', 'a..., plot_points='automatic', **kwds) ) Thanks Philippe --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: parametric_plot3d and **kwds
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Philippe Saade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Does anybody know where the **kwds are defined in Sage for the command parametric_plot3d (not counting those given by the definition parametric_plot3d(f, urange, vrange=['4ti2-20061025', 'R-2.6.0', 'atlas-3.7.37', 'atlas-3.8.1', 'a..., plot_points='automatic', **kwds) ) Thanks Philippe There : sage.plot.plot3d.base.Graphics3d.show --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: parametric_plot3d and **kwds
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Philippe Saade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Philippe Saade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Does anybody know where the **kwds are defined in Sage for the command parametric_plot3d (not counting those given by the definition parametric_plot3d(f, urange, vrange=['4ti2-20061025', 'R-2.6.0', 'atlas-3.7.37', 'atlas-3.8.1', 'a..., plot_points='automatic', **kwds) ) Anything that is not explicitly documented in parametric_plot3d should just get passed on to show. -- William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: parametric_plot3d and **kwds
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Philippe Saade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:16 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anything that is not explicitly documented in parametric_plot3d should just get passed on to show. -- William Ok ! I'll make my documentation compliant with that advice. But i've noticed that it is sometimes not possible (in 3.1.1...). For example : p = plot(exp,plot_points=3,plot_division=4) p.show(marker='+',markeredgecolor='red') TypeError: show() got an unexpected keyword argument 'marker' If you have an advice on the best practice's way to typeset this, i am interested. (1) You have it backwards -- options to plot3d that aren't used by the plot3d command get passed through to show, not the other way around. (2) This is only for 3d plotting commands. Unfortunately 2d plotting commands don't work that way (yet). William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: parametric_plot3d and **kwds
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:16 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anything that is not explicitly documented in parametric_plot3d should just get passed on to show. -- William Ok ! I'll make my documentation compliant with that advice. But i've noticed that it is sometimes not possible (in 3.1.1...). For example : p = plot(exp,plot_points=3,plot_division=4) p.show(marker='+',markeredgecolor='red') TypeError: show() got an unexpected keyword argument 'marker' If you have an advice on the best practice's way to typeset this, i am interested. Philippe --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
