Re: [sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 21:00, Simon King  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> On 2019-03-20, john_perry_usm  wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > 2) In Catholic theology it is not actually "necessary" for Mary to be
> free
> > of original sin; rather, it is "fitting".
>
> Right, "fitting" may be the better wording. And concerning the necessity of
> the doctrine of immaculate conception: 13th till 19th century (before pope
> Pius IX. turned immaculate conception into a dogma), the Dominicans
> provided
> alternative facts, namely "Sanctificatio Mariae" instead of immaculate
> conception. Whereas virginal conception is accepted doctrine in
> Catholicism,
> Protestantism and Islam, immaculate conception is dogma in Catholicism, not
> accepted as a dogma in most other branches of Christian theology, and
> irrelevant to Islam.
>
> So, back to SageMath, hoping to not hurt people's feelings: According to
> the scripture (SageMath documentation), in
>sage: f(x,y) = x^2+y
> x and y are virginally conceived by the symbolic ring through the power
> of the preparser, which is commonly accepted by SageMath's followers.
> However, the scripture does not assert that the symbolic ring is free of
> sin (bugs), and thus not all followers agree on the immaculate conception
> of the symbolic ring.


a customised SageMath keyboard should have an “amen” key...


>
> Best regards,
> Simon
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Simon King]

Hi John,

On 2019-03-20, john_perry_usm  wrote:
> ...
>
> 2) In Catholic theology it is not actually "necessary" for Mary to be free 
> of original sin; rather, it is "fitting".

Right, "fitting" may be the better wording. And concerning the necessity of
the doctrine of immaculate conception: 13th till 19th century (before pope
Pius IX. turned immaculate conception into a dogma), the Dominicans provided
alternative facts, namely "Sanctificatio Mariae" instead of immaculate
conception. Whereas virginal conception is accepted doctrine in Catholicism,
Protestantism and Islam, immaculate conception is dogma in Catholicism, not
accepted as a dogma in most other branches of Christian theology, and
irrelevant to Islam.

So, back to SageMath, hoping to not hurt people's feelings: According to
the scripture (SageMath documentation), in
   sage: f(x,y) = x^2+y
x and y are virginally conceived by the symbolic ring through the power
of the preparser, which is commonly accepted by SageMath's followers.
However, the scripture does not assert that the symbolic ring is free of
sin (bugs), and thus not all followers agree on the immaculate conception
of the symbolic ring.

Best regards,
Simon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[john_perry_usm]

To follow up on Simon King's mostly correct answer:

1) The joke I was trying to make is that it's "immaculate" only if it's 
free of all bugs.

2) In Catholic theology it is not actually "necessary" for Mary to be free 
of original sin; rather, it is "fitting".

john perry

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:37:18 AM UTC-5, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Henri, 
>
> On 2019-03-19, henri@gmail.com   > wrote: 
> > What is the difference between virginal conception and immaculate 
> > conception ? 
>
> "Virginal conception" in the context of Christian dogmatics concerns how 
> Jesus was conceived. "Immaculate conception" concerns how Jesus' *mother* 
> was conceived. Thus, two totally different things. 
>
> Namely, the dogma of immaculate conception says that Mary was exempt 
> from the "original sin" (which for ordinary people is hereditary, but in 
> order to let Mary be able to give birth to God she needed to be free of 
> *any* sin, including the sins of Adam and Eve). 
> The dogma of "virginal conception" says that Mary conceived Jesus 
> although she was virgin. 
>
> Best regards, 
> Simon 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Simon King]

Hi Emmanuel,

On 2019-03-20, Emmanuel Charpentier  wrote:
> Nice one, Simon ! I'm sorely tempted to mark is as "best answer":-)...

No, it was off-topic. But when a question is raised, I generally try to
answer.
Cheers,
Simon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Nils Bruin]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 4:37:49 AM UTC-7, Emmanuel Charpentier 
wrote:
>
> But I wont, because I tend to think that, as long as we are insisting on 
> explicit creation of symbolic variables,
>

An argument that has been used in that context is that in "f(x)=sin(x)" the 
`x` does occur on the LHS of the assignment, so it is part of what is 
"assigned to". Just as in "R.=QQ[]", the assignment does mention `x` 
explicitly on the LHS, so it is an explicit assignment.
 

>
>
>1. raise an error if the arguments of a symbolic function are not yet 
>existing in the name space, or
>
> I expect that would break too much. If you're worried to losing 
information, we could inject something in the code produced by the 
preparser that issues an error or a warning if the assigned-to variable 
names already have a binding that doesn't agree with what they are being 
bound to. 

>
>1. 
>2. automatically create undeclared variables as symbolic variables (as 
>in Maxima, Mathematica und so weiter...).
>
> I don't think that follows as a corollary from being "explicit" because 
the variables are mentioned explicitly on the LHS in our current syntax. 
However, if you'd run a full fragment through the python parser, you should 
be able to get a tree back from which you can read off what symbols need to 
take their binding from outside. That's how python decides which variables 
are local, global, or part of a closure. So we'd need a "postparser" for 
that. I would not support that.

I would say the ship has sailed on this one: this is how the preparser was 
designed to define symbolic functions with a concise short-hand syntax that 
would otherwise be a syntax error in python. Breaking that now will affect 
too much code that's already out there; in particular little examples 
people have prepared to use in teaching, where breakage is likely not 
detected (checking pre-prepared materials that worked before is just a 
chore) and is embarrassing in front of a large audience, doing great damage 
to the perception of sage being useful as a classroom tool. 

It's convenient for beginner use of sage, where the objective is to quickly 
do something calculus-like without having to dwell on the peculiarities of 
mathematics software: the WolframAlpha scenario. If you don't like the 
implications of the syntax, don't use it, but call something like

f = (sin(x)).function(x)

instead. That's straight-up valid python syntax with no hidden preparser 
complications. The preparser is not tuned towards serious programming.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Isuru Fernando]

Hi Simon,

Yes, that's what I meant. I see it as a problem because if you had a python
variable x, it will be overwritten by the symbolic value.

Isuru

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 4:25 AM Simon King  wrote:

> Hi Isuru,
>
> On 2019-03-19, Isuru Fernando  wrote:
> > If the sage preparser did something like,
> >
> > __tmp__ = SR.var("x, y"); __tmp_g__ = lambda x, y:
> > symbolic_expression(x+y**Integer(2)).function(x,y); f =
> __tmp_g__(*__tmp__)
> >
> > for
> >
> > f(x, y)  = x + y ** 2
> >
> > you wouldn't have this problem and it should be easy enough to change in
> > the preparsesr.
>
> By "problem" you mean that f(x,y)=x+y^2 creates symbolic variables
> called x and y? I don't think that's a problem, but a useful feature.
>
> Best regards,
> Simon
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

Nice one, Simon ! I'm sorely tempted to mark is as "best answer":-)...

But I wont, because I tend to think that, as long as we are insisting on 
explicit creation of symbolic variables, restricting the use of automatic 
declaration to the (old) (deprecated) Sage notebook and continue to make 
noises about its deprecation, we cannot accept this and remain consistent.

We should either:

   1. raise an error if the arguments of a symbolic function are not yet 
   existing in the name space, or
   2. automatically create undeclared variables as symbolic variables (as 
   in Maxima, Mathematica und so weiter...).
   
My laziness would make me prefer 1) if having being burned already wasn't 
strongly pushing me towards 2...

Of course, there is another solution : to note that these arguments are 
just placeholders (as the integration variable of an integrand), and treat 
the as *local* variable of a function creating the neede symbolic function 
: he function affects local symbolic variables as the value of these local 
symbols, creates the function and returns it, he local symbolic variables 
dying with the end of the function...

But, whereas this would be (damnably 'of course, given the context :-)) 
easy to do in Lisp or anything having lazy (or delayed) evaluation, I do 
not see how to do this in Python.

Le mercredi 20 mars 2019 09:37:18 UTC+1, Simon King a écrit :
>
> Hi Henri, 
>
> On 2019-03-19, henri@gmail.com   > wrote: 
> > What is the difference between virginal conception and immaculate 
> > conception ? 
>
> "Virginal conception" in the context of Christian dogmatics concerns how 
> Jesus was conceived. "Immaculate conception" concerns how Jesus' *mother* 
> was conceived. Thus, two totally different things. 
>
> Namely, the dogma of immaculate conception says that Mary was exempt 
> from the "original sin" (which for ordinary people is hereditary, but in 
> order to let Mary be able to give birth to God she needed to be free of 
> *any* sin, including the sins of Adam and Eve). 
> The dogma of "virginal conception" says that Mary conceived Jesus 
> although she was virgin. 
>
> Best regards, 
> Simon 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Deepak Pawar]

Thanks Simon

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:19 PM Simon King  wrote:

> On 2019-03-20, Deepak Pawar  wrote:
> > looking for the plotting tutorials in 2D and 3D in sagemath. Can anyone
> > suggest me the good resources or link for the same?
>
> Hi Deepak,
>
> this thread is about a totally different topic. Next time please open a
> new thread when you want to discuss a new topic.
>
> Concerning your question: You can find SageMath's documentation starting
> here: https://www.sagemath.org/
>
> There is a tutorial Plotting:
> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/tutorial/tour_plotting.html
>
> Also, in the list thematic tutorials
> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/thematic_tutorials/index.html
> you find further tutorials "Symbolics and Plotting" and "Advanced-2D
> Plotting".
>
> And of course, the reference manual
> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/index.html
> contains chapters on 2D and 3D graphics.
>
> Best regards,
> Simon
>
>
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:32 AM Isuru Fernando  wrote:
> >
> >> If the sage preparser did something like,
> >>
> >> __tmp__ = SR.var("x, y"); __tmp_g__ = lambda x, y:
> >> symbolic_expression(x+y**Integer(2)).function(x,y); f =
> __tmp_g__(*__tmp__)
> >>
> >> for
> >>
> >> f(x, y)  = x + y ** 2
> >>
> >> you wouldn't have this problem and it should be easy enough to change in
> >> the preparsesr.
> >>
> >> Isuru
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:38 PM john_perry_usm 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Apologies for the pedantry, but unless the indeterminates so generated
> >>> are free of all bugs, then strictly speaking this is not immaculate
> >>> conception; it is spontaneous generation, or perhaps virginal
> conception.
> >>> ;-)
> >>>
> >>> john perry
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-5, Emmanuel Charpentier
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  Defining a symbolic function seems to declare its arguments. Case
>  illustrated in this sagecell example
>  <
> https://sagecell.sagemath.org/?z=eJwrSi1OLdHQ5OXyTDG0BTGLM_LL4zNTUvNKMtMyU4uKNTSBkmn5-RoFOok6SZq2BXEaibqGmloahroFmnEaSUA2SLMRbs1ASQVdBaD5ACSeIG0=&lang=sage&interacts=eJyLjgUAARUAuQ==
> >
>   :
> 
>  reset()
>  Id1=set(show_identifiers())
>  foo(p,a,b)=p^(a-1)*(1-p)^(b-1)
>  Id2=set(show_identifiers())
>  Id2 - Id1
> 
>  which happily prints :
> 
>  {'Id1', 'a', 'b', 'foo', 'p'}
> 
> 
>  Is this expected ?
> 
> 
> 
>  --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> >>> "sage-support" group.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an
> >>> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
> >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> >> "sage-support" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an
> >> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
> >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Regards*
> >
> > Deepak K Pawar
> > Research Scholer
> > ME16D034
> > Machine Design Section
> > Department of Mechanical Engineering
> > IIT Madras, Chennai, India
> > Email: deepakpawar.2...@gmail.co m
> >me16d...@smail.iitm.ac.in
> > Mob No: +91-7208385265
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
*Regards*

Deepak K Pawar
Research Scholer
ME16D034
Machine Design Section
Department of Mechanical Engineering
IIT Madras, Chennai, India
Email: deepakpawar.2...@gmail.co m
   me16d...@smail.iitm.ac.in
Mob No: +91-7208385265

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Simon King]

On 2019-03-20, Deepak Pawar  wrote:
> looking for the plotting tutorials in 2D and 3D in sagemath. Can anyone
> suggest me the good resources or link for the same?

Hi Deepak,

this thread is about a totally different topic. Next time please open a
new thread when you want to discuss a new topic.

Concerning your question: You can find SageMath's documentation starting
here: https://www.sagemath.org/

There is a tutorial Plotting:
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/tutorial/tour_plotting.html

Also, in the list thematic tutorials
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/thematic_tutorials/index.html
you find further tutorials "Symbolics and Plotting" and "Advanced-2D
Plotting".

And of course, the reference manual
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/index.html
contains chapters on 2D and 3D graphics.

Best regards,
Simon


>
>
> Thank you
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:32 AM Isuru Fernando  wrote:
>
>> If the sage preparser did something like,
>>
>> __tmp__ = SR.var("x, y"); __tmp_g__ = lambda x, y:
>> symbolic_expression(x+y**Integer(2)).function(x,y); f = __tmp_g__(*__tmp__)
>>
>> for
>>
>> f(x, y)  = x + y ** 2
>>
>> you wouldn't have this problem and it should be easy enough to change in
>> the preparsesr.
>>
>> Isuru
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:38 PM john_perry_usm 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Apologies for the pedantry, but unless the indeterminates so generated
>>> are free of all bugs, then strictly speaking this is not immaculate
>>> conception; it is spontaneous generation, or perhaps virginal conception.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> john perry
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-5, Emmanuel Charpentier
>>> wrote:

 Defining a symbolic function seems to declare its arguments. Case
 illustrated in this sagecell example
 
  :

 reset()
 Id1=set(show_identifiers())
 foo(p,a,b)=p^(a-1)*(1-p)^(b-1)
 Id2=set(show_identifiers())
 Id2 - Id1

 which happily prints :

 {'Id1', 'a', 'b', 'foo', 'p'}


 Is this expected ?



 --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "sage-support" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "sage-support" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> -- 
> *Regards*
>
> Deepak K Pawar
> Research Scholer
> ME16D034
> Machine Design Section
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> IIT Madras, Chennai, India
> Email: deepakpawar.2...@gmail.co m
>me16d...@smail.iitm.ac.in
> Mob No: +91-7208385265
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Simon King]

Hi Henri,

On 2019-03-19, henri.gir...@gmail.com  wrote:
> What is the difference between virginal conception and immaculate 
> conception ?

"Virginal conception" in the context of Christian dogmatics concerns how
Jesus was conceived. "Immaculate conception" concerns how Jesus' *mother*
was conceived. Thus, two totally different things.

Namely, the dogma of immaculate conception says that Mary was exempt
from the "original sin" (which for ordinary people is hereditary, but in
order to let Mary be able to give birth to God she needed to be free of
*any* sin, including the sins of Adam and Eve).
The dogma of "virginal conception" says that Mary conceived Jesus
although she was virgin.

Best regards,
Simon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Deepak Pawar]

looking for the plotting tutorials in 2D and 3D in sagemath. Can anyone
suggest me the good resources or link for the same?



Thank you

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:32 AM Isuru Fernando  wrote:

> If the sage preparser did something like,
>
> __tmp__ = SR.var("x, y"); __tmp_g__ = lambda x, y:
> symbolic_expression(x+y**Integer(2)).function(x,y); f = __tmp_g__(*__tmp__)
>
> for
>
> f(x, y)  = x + y ** 2
>
> you wouldn't have this problem and it should be easy enough to change in
> the preparsesr.
>
> Isuru
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:38 PM john_perry_usm 
> wrote:
>
>> Apologies for the pedantry, but unless the indeterminates so generated
>> are free of all bugs, then strictly speaking this is not immaculate
>> conception; it is spontaneous generation, or perhaps virginal conception.
>> ;-)
>>
>> john perry
>>
>> On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-5, Emmanuel Charpentier
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Defining a symbolic function seems to declare its arguments. Case
>>> illustrated in this sagecell example
>>> 
>>>  :
>>>
>>> reset()
>>> Id1=set(show_identifiers())
>>> foo(p,a,b)=p^(a-1)*(1-p)^(b-1)
>>> Id2=set(show_identifiers())
>>> Id2 - Id1
>>>
>>> which happily prints :
>>>
>>> {'Id1', 'a', 'b', 'foo', 'p'}
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this expected ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "sage-support" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
*Regards*

Deepak K Pawar
Research Scholer
ME16D034
Machine Design Section
Department of Mechanical Engineering
IIT Madras, Chennai, India
Email: deepakpawar.2...@gmail.co m
   me16d...@smail.iitm.ac.in
Mob No: +91-7208385265

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Simon King]

Hi Isuru,

On 2019-03-19, Isuru Fernando  wrote:
> If the sage preparser did something like,
>
> __tmp__ = SR.var("x, y"); __tmp_g__ = lambda x, y:
> symbolic_expression(x+y**Integer(2)).function(x,y); f = __tmp_g__(*__tmp__)
>
> for
>
> f(x, y)  = x + y ** 2
>
> you wouldn't have this problem and it should be easy enough to change in
> the preparsesr.

By "problem" you mean that f(x,y)=x+y^2 creates symbolic variables
called x and y? I don't think that's a problem, but a useful feature.

Best regards,
Simon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Isuru Fernando]

If the sage preparser did something like,

__tmp__ = SR.var("x, y"); __tmp_g__ = lambda x, y:
symbolic_expression(x+y**Integer(2)).function(x,y); f = __tmp_g__(*__tmp__)

for

f(x, y)  = x + y ** 2

you wouldn't have this problem and it should be easy enough to change in
the preparsesr.

Isuru

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:38 PM john_perry_usm  wrote:

> Apologies for the pedantry, but unless the indeterminates so generated are
> free of all bugs, then strictly speaking this is not immaculate conception;
> it is spontaneous generation, or perhaps virginal conception. ;-)
>
> john perry
>
> On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-5, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>>
>> Defining a symbolic function seems to declare its arguments. Case
>> illustrated in this sagecell example
>> 
>>  :
>>
>> reset()
>> Id1=set(show_identifiers())
>> foo(p,a,b)=p^(a-1)*(1-p)^(b-1)
>> Id2=set(show_identifiers())
>> Id2 - Id1
>>
>> which happily prints :
>>
>> {'Id1', 'a', 'b', 'foo', 'p'}
>>
>>
>> Is this expected ?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[henri.gir...@gmail.com]

Hi John,

What is the difference between virginal conception and immaculate 
conception ?


I notice that sagemath can even cogitate in philosophy : Really a swiss 
knife ?


I don't believe in spontaneous generation ! lol

Henri

Le 19/03/2019 à 18:38, john_perry_usm a écrit :
Apologies for the pedantry, but unless the indeterminates so generated 
are free of all bugs, then strictly speaking this is not immaculate 
conception; it is spontaneous generation, or perhaps virginal 
conception. ;-)


john perry

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-5, Emmanuel Charpentier 
wrote:


Defining a symbolic function seems to declare its arguments. Case
illustrated in this sagecell example


 :


reset()
Id1=set(show_identifiers())
foo(p,a,b)=p^(a-1)*(1-p)^(b-1)
Id2=set(show_identifiers())
Id2 - Id1

which happily prints :

{'Id1', 'a', 'b', 'foo', 'p'}

Is this expected ?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[john_perry_usm]

Apologies for the pedantry, but unless the indeterminates so generated are 
free of all bugs, then strictly speaking this is not immaculate conception; 
it is spontaneous generation, or perhaps virginal conception. ;-)

john perry

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-5, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>
> Defining a symbolic function seems to declare its arguments. Case 
> illustrated in this sagecell example 
> 
>  :
>
> reset()
> Id1=set(show_identifiers())
> foo(p,a,b)=p^(a-1)*(1-p)^(b-1)
> Id2=set(show_identifiers())
> Id2 - Id1
>
> which happily prints :
>
> {'Id1', 'a', 'b', 'foo', 'p'}
>
>
> Is this expected ?
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Nils Bruin]

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 4:52:19 AM UTC-7, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>
> Defining a symbolic function seems to declare its arguments. Is this 
> expected ?
>
It's certainly explicit programmed:

sage: preparse("f(x)=1")
'__tmp__=var("x"); f = symbolic_expression(Integer(1)).function(x)

On the plus side, we have very concise syntax for defining symbolic 
variables without having to write quotes:

sage: _(x,y,z)=1
sage: x^2+y^2+z^2
x^2 + y^2 + z^2

which is shorter than var("x,y,z") AND it doesn't cause a tuple to be 
printed.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Re: A case of immaculate conception...

[Simon King]

Hi Emmanuel,

On 2019-03-19, Jeroen Demeyer  wrote:
> On 2019-03-19 12:52, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>> Defining a symbolic function seems to declare its arguments.
>
> I tend to think that everything on the left of the '=' sign in an 
> assignment is stuff that is assigned to. So
>
>(a, b, c) = range(3)
>
> assigns to a, b and c.
>
>R. = ZZ[]
>
> assigns to R and x.
>
>func(x) = x
>
> assigns to func and x.
>
> So in this sense, it's expected.

Some addition: While the first example
   (a,b,c) = range(3)
is standard Python behaviour, the other examples work because Sage uses
a preparser to make it possible to use nicer syntax in maths:
   f(x) = x^2
is a lot more concise and easier to understand for non-programmers than
   __tmp__=var("x"); f = symbolic_expression(x**Integer(2)).function(x)
(which is what the preparser makes of it).

Best regards,
Simon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.