On 3/28/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was actually all a footnote to the main question of the original
> post, namely having an UnparsedLiteralDecimal class used by the
> preparser to avoid awkwardness like
>
> sage: RealField(100)('1.2') == RealField(100)(1.2)
> False
I'm
I could try to prepare a 15-minute demonstration. Does anyone have
any suggestions for demonstrating SAGE's capabilities? What will
interest people in computer algebra?
didier
On 3/27/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I see Didier Deshommes has registered. I just did as well,
> bu
On 1/4/07, Joshua Kantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In response to Williams sage-2.0 plan I wanted to describe what I had done
> with using gsl to implement a numerical ode solver. I believe that the
> patch containing this will be applied after
> doing a recent pull or upgrade but I'm not su
On 4/1/07, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It works fine on my (old, heavily hacked) installation. I was just
> going to check it on sage.math, but my SSH is telling me the RSA key
> has changed. Is that true?
Yes, due to the completely new OS install.
> BTW, what's the quickest wa
On 3/31/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the process of investigating how rings are defined in sage I've found
> some
> inconsistencies: the function multiplicative_order is not consistently
> defined
> for all rings.
>
> Applying this function to a rational
> integer which is n
On 4/1/07, Joshua Kantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just installed a new version of sage and
> ode_solver? fails with the same errors as in his message. Did something
> change
> which would obviously cause this.
This is probably bug in the misc/sageinspect.py, which Nick Alexander
recently r
