Hey Ondrej,
While the correspondence is not exact, this should be enough to work:
sage: e = x*y
sage: type(e)
sage: e._operands
[x, y]
sage: e._operator
sage: e = exp(y)
sage: e._operands
[exp, y]
sage: type(e)
sage: var('z')
z
sage: f = x+y*z
sage: f._operands
[x, y*z]
sage: (y*z)._operands
This is due to maxima's interactive questioning.
(%i3) limit((sin(2*x)/x)**(1+x), x, 0);
Is x positive or negative?
positive;
Is sin(2 x) positive or negative?
positive;
(%o3) 2
I don't know if there is anything we can really do about this other
than show a
Hi
> sage: limit((sin(2*x)/x)**(1+x), x=0)
> ---
> Traceback (most recent call last)
BTW in SymPy:
In [1]: from sympy.series.limits2 import compare, mrv, rewrite,
mrv_leadterm, limit
In [2]: limit((sin(2*x)/x)
On 9/30/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Timothy Clemans wrote:
>
> >
> > That is a feature that has been in SAGE since the calculus module was
> > added.
>
> How does this relate to the calculus package, or are you just noting
> the release when
$ ./sage
--
| SAGE Version 2.8.4.1, Release Date: 2007-09-09 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
--
sage
On Sep 30, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Timothy Clemans wrote:
>
> That is a feature that has been in SAGE since the calculus module was
> added.
How does this relate to the calculus package, or are you just noting
the release when it first appeared?
> In typing that in a notebook I found out that the
On Sep 30, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
>> sage: Z4=FreeModule(ZZ,4)
>> sage: P=Z2.plot()
>> sage: P.show()
>>
>> Bug? Feature?
>
> Yeah, I think the units on the axes are a bit off ;)
You're right. At first I thought the .25 related to the rank, but I
got the same thing for rank
> sage: Z4=FreeModule(ZZ,4)
> sage: P=Z2.plot()
> sage: P.show()
>
> Bug? Feature?
Yeah, I think the units on the axes are a bit off ;)
--Mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group,
That is a feature that has been in SAGE since the calculus module was
added. In typing that in a notebook I found out that the sage: prompt
is no longer valid.
On 9/30/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This seems kind of odd to me. Try this at home:
>
> sage: Z4=FreeModule(ZZ,4
This seems kind of odd to me. Try this at home:
sage: Z4=FreeModule(ZZ,4)
sage: P=Z2.plot()
sage: P.show()
Bug? Feature?
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large
Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income
Experience is what you get
when you don't get what you w
tboothby wrote:
> I realize that the answer to this is probably a resounding "NO!", but: are
> you
>planning to support the debugging of Cython code?
If people think that the approach JpyDbg uses for Python debugging
would work with Cython, I might be interested in supporting Cython
debugging
I realize that the answer to this is probably a resounding "NO!", but: are you
planning to support the debugging of Cython code?
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Ted Kosan wrote:
>
> SAGEIDE version .02 has been released and it can be obtained here:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/tkosan/sageide
SAGEIDE version .02 has been released and it can be obtained here:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/tkosan/sageide_dist.02.zip
Here is a screenshot of SAGEIDE:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/tkosan/sageide0.png
The installation instructions are very simple:
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIO
On Sep 28, 12:58 pm, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be nice to know the name of the author of this article - how
> strange that it isn't included in the rant, and all I get from
> exploring is "tirinanana?"
Hi. I wrote it.
Er, the "tirinanana?" thing is very inside joke. I p
I just created this. While browsing source, I noticed that
an_element_impl() appears to be defined twice in structure/
formal_sum.py. It's easy to fix, but I have a 50% chance of being
right.
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large
Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
---
Patches attached to http://www.sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/764 .
sage -testall passes, but the test for hash(P) in
multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx needs to be changed for 32-bit
machines since I don't have access to one.
--Mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to
On Sep 30, 2007, at 12:33 PM, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/30/07, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday 30 September 2007, John Cremona wrote:
>>> I agree with this (but the documentation should be very clear).
>>> It's
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Martin
>
> sage:
On 9/30/07, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 30 September 2007, John Cremona wrote:
> > I agree with this (but the documentation should be very clear). It's
>
> +1
>
> Martin
sage: PolynomialRing(ZZ, 'x')
Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Integer Ring
sage: PolynomialR
On Sunday 30 September 2007, John Cremona wrote:
> I agree with this (but the documentation should be very clear). It's
+1
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED
I agree with this (but the documentation should be very clear). It's
the same in Magma:
> Type(PolynomialRing(RationalField()));
RngUPol
> Type(PolynomialRing(RationalField(),1));
RngMPol
John
On 30/09/2007, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/30/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Wish I could be there! Fine by me if you want to give the same in Bristol.
John
On 30/09/2007, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> See the file bsd.pdf here:
>
> http://wstein.org/talks/20070930-stein-bsd/
>
> for the first SD5 talk, whi
Hi,
See the file bsd.pdf here:
http://wstein.org/talks/20070930-stein-bsd/
for the first SD5 talk, which is on
"Computing with the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture".
-- william
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://
> Wait! This would an explicit intentional design choice, not a bug.
> I think it should be possible to create ZZ['x'] but as a multivariate
> polynomial ring instead of a univariate polynomial ring,
> since there are certain things one can do with multivariate
> polynomial rings that don't make
On 9/30/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There is something *extremely* fishy about the base ring here! It's
> > a *multivariate* polynomial ring:
>
> Here is the culprit:
>
> sage: type(PolynomialRing(ZZ, 1, 'x'))
> 'sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring.MPolynomialRing_po
> There is something *extremely* fishy about the base ring here! It's
> a *multivariate* polynomial ring:
Here is the culprit:
sage: type(PolynomialRing(ZZ, 1, 'x'))
while
sage: type(PolynomialRing(ZZ, 'x'))
I've created a ticket: http://www.sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/764
and will post
25 matches
Mail list logo
