>
> I think that going via InputForm is not the right way to do such a
> conversion from FriCAS Expression(INT) into a Sage expression.
>
> Wouldn't it be wiser to add functions to Expression in order to
> decompose an element. There are already some such functions.
>
At least for the
The escape symbel _ is necessary in order to defeat the magic.
Great, many thanks Bill! I saw the API for RewriteRule and I was willing to try
these functions, but I was unable to defeat interpreter's magics.
riccardo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Wouldn't it be wiser to add functions to Expression in order to
>> decompose an element.
>
> No, not in the case of the Sage interface to FriCAS.
Can you give a reason why?
A function that would enable to go step by step through an expression
tree in FriCAS wouln't be such a bad idea even
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Riccardo GUIDA
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I do not understand how the syntax
>
> rule sin(x) == x -- see (1) below
>
> is accommodated to fit in the signature
> (EXPR(INT), EXPR(INT)) -> RULE(INT,INT,EXPR(INT))
> see fricas message below
>
> In other words: in (1) I do
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> I think that going via InputForm is not the right way to do such a
> conversion from FriCAS Expression(INT) into a Sage expression.
>
I disagree.
> Wouldn't it be wiser to add functions to Expression in order to
> decompose an element.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:17 AM, 'Martin R' via FriCAS - computer
algebra system wrote:
>
> Would it be possible to change that to something like the following
> (WARNING: only lightly tested!).
+1
> Two comments:
>
> 1) The scripts are of type OutputForm, but there is no way to get an
>
yeah, I recall. But everywhere, we only have 0 and 1, so it is really
annoying always to fall into the same trap. Couldn't the compiler learn
about 0 and Zero etc.?
Am 05.07.18 um 18:48 schrieb Bill Page:
> Maybe like this:
>
> (1) -> Integer has Zero:()->Integer
>
>(1) true
>
Maybe like this:
(1) -> Integer has Zero:()->Integer
(1) true
Type: Boolean
(2) -> Integer has One:()->Integer
(2) true
Type: Boolean
As I recall 0 is just a
Hi
I do not understand how the syntax
rule sin(x) == x -- see (1) below
is accommodated to fit in the signature
(EXPR(INT), EXPR(INT)) -> RULE(INT,INT,EXPR(INT))
see fricas message below
In other words: in (1) I do not see a call to a function "rule" of two
parameters, rule(f,g): what's
Hi Martin,
> (52) -> f := guess([reduce(*, [reduce(+, [1/k for k in 1..m], 0) for m in
> 1..n], 1) for n in 0..10]).1
>
> p - 1
> n - 111
> ++-++ --+ 1
>(52) | | > --- + 1
> | | --+s + 2
> p =
Dear all,
as you may know, I am trying to improve the accessibility of FriCAS from
sage, since some people (including myself) value FriCAS strengths.
I wanted to add functionality to translate FriCAS' sums and products into
sage's, but ran into a stupid problem.
Basically, I use the unparsed
What is the proper way to qualify a type E to have a constant or a
function with no variables?
Other functions work well, here are examples from the algebra code.
if R has imaginary : () -> R then
if SMPF has _*: (NonNegativeInteger, SMPF) -> SMPF
if Coef has "*": (Expon,Coef) -> Coef then
12 matches
Mail list logo
