Enrique,
This can easily be done at the moment, assuming that you want to count
integral points up to a certain height N. If you are looking for all of the
points of something you know has only finitely many, I am not so sure.
I hope the following ramble helps.
sage: A,B,C,D,E,F=[1,0,0,0,0,-1] #
Hello,
This is my first post to the developer group so please bear with me.
Also, I don't mean to distract you from any pressing matters so take
your time.
Earlier today I downloaded
http://sagemath.org/SAGEbin/apple_osx/intel/sage-2.9.2-osx10.4-intel-i386-Darwin.dmg
for installation on my Macb
On Jan 16, 6:23 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I was under the impression that MPFR was supposed to give identical
> answers across all platforms (unlike, say, RDF). I was wondering if
> any experts in the area could explain the numerical noise in cases like
>
> http://sagetrac
I was under the impression that MPFR was supposed to give identical
answers across all platforms (unlike, say, RDF). I was wondering if
any experts in the area could explain the numerical noise in cases like
http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/1790
Is this something to be worried about, or
On Jan 16, 5:23 am, gri6507 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've posted several thread on this topic now - mostly with question.
> But now, with the help of several members in this forum, I finally
> have my first release of an RPM
> (seehttp://www.mypclinuxos.com/forum/index.php?topic=1509.msg133
gri6507 wrote:
Hi,
> I've posted several thread on this topic now - mostly with question.
> But now, with the help of several members in this forum, I finally
> have my first release of an RPM (see
> http://www.mypclinuxos.com/forum/index.php?topic=1509.msg13310#msg13310)
>
> I now want to do tw
I've posted several thread on this topic now - mostly with question.
But now, with the help of several members in this forum, I finally
have my first release of an RPM (see
http://www.mypclinuxos.com/forum/index.php?topic=1509.msg13310#msg13310)
I now want to do two things. The first is to trim d
On Jan 15, 10:54 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One error in testing (see below):
>
> On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:05 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > Sage 10.2.alpha3 is out. The combinatorics update has been
> > sorted out and doctests should pass. There were also a
> > whole bunch of
On Jan 15, 10:32 pm, Kate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael,
Hi Kate,
> sage-2.10.alpha3 fails one test (polynomial_element.pyx) on
> both
> x86-Linux (pentium4-fc6)
> x86_64-Linux (Opteron-fc6)
>
> Both were built using gcc-4.2.2
>
> Details follow.
>
> Kate
>
> **
> x86-Linux
> **
Jason Grout wrote:
> Jaap Spies wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>>
> sage: v = vector(RDF, (1,2))
> sage: plot(v, type='arrow').show()
>>>^^
>>>
>>> Could you call this parameter something besides "type"? I
>>> don't like "type" since it is a builtin function na
On Jan 15, 2008 3:26 PM, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jaap Spies wrote:
> > William Stein wrote:
> >
> sage: v = vector(RDF, (1,2))
> sage: plot(v, type='arrow').show()
> >>^^
> >>
> >> Could you call this parameter something besides "type"? I
>
Jaap Spies wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>
sage: v = vector(RDF, (1,2))
sage: plot(v, type='arrow').show()
>>^^
>>
>> Could you call this parameter something besides "type"? I
>> don't like "type" since it is a builtin function name:
>>
>> sage: type(4/5)
>>
It's years since I used symbolic computation systems (I used Macsyma
from around 1983). Here I was testing some code which will normally
be used on numerical data on some generic examples while at the same
time getting used to Python's freedom of expression.
[Exercise for the reader: what compu
On Jan 15, 2008 8:28 AM, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've posted into ticket #258 a patch for integrating gp2c into Sage.
> Obviously this may still have bugs, so it needs to be reviewed by
> someone that understands the details of how gp comunicates
> with Sage.
>
>
On Jan 15, 2008 1:01 PM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why does this symbolic expression not simplify (to 0)?
>
> John
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> | SAGE Version 2.9.3, Release Date: 2008-01-05
On 15/01/2008, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> > What about
> >
> > sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 + x - (3^3-3))
> > sage: E = EllipticCurve('37a'); E
> > Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + y = x^3 - x over Rational Field
> > sage: X
Hi,
This is from Joachim Neubüser (who started Gap) from a few minutes ago,
in reference to open source math software, Sage, etc.:
"Ceterum censeo:
Nobody has ever paid a license fee
for the proof that Sylow subgroups exist in every finite group,
Nobody should ever pay a license fee
for computi
Thanks!
John
On 15/01/2008, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:01 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> >
> > Why does this symbolic expression not simplify (to 0)?
> >
> > John
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -
On Jan 15, 2008 1:58 PM, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2008, at 9:39 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
> >
> >> Perhaps something like
> >>
> >> P, Q = generic_points(2)
> >> P+Q # this works (assuming we can do the fraction field arithmetic
> >> efficiently enough)
> >>
>
On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> What about
>
> sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 + x - (3^3-3))
> sage: E = EllipticCurve('37a'); E
> Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + y = x^3 - x over Rational Field
> sage: X = E.change_ring(K); X
> Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + y = x^3 + (-1)*x
On Jan 15, 2008, at 9:39 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>> Perhaps something like
>>
>> P, Q = generic_points(2)
>> P+Q # this works (assuming we can do the fraction field arithmetic
>> efficiently enough)
>>
>> where P and Q are defined over the same ring large enough to make
>> them independent.
On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:08 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2008 10:25 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I like Robert's suggestion. If the user wants n independent generic
>> points, construct a large enough field (transcendence degree n) to
>> contain them.
>>
>> A useful
One error in testing (see below):
On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:05 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> Sage 10.2.alpha3 is out. The combinatorics update has been
> sorted out and doctests should pass. There were also a
> whole bunch of small updates. The big push for alpha4 [at
> least on my end] will be the package
Michael,
sage-2.10.alpha3 fails one test (polynomial_element.pyx) on
both
x86-Linux (pentium4-fc6)
x86_64-Linux (Opteron-fc6)
Both were built using gcc-4.2.2
Details follow.
Kate
**
x86-Linux
**
sage -t devel/sage-main/sage/rings/polynomial/
polynomial_element.pyx***
On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:01 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Why does this symbolic expression not simplify (to 0)?
>
> John
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> | SAGE Version 2.9.3, Release Date: 2008-01-05 |
> | Type no
Why does this symbolic expression not simplify (to 0)?
John
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
| SAGE Version 2.9.3, Release Date: 2008-01-05 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
-
On Jan 15, 2008 11:56 AM, Lloyd Kilford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "I believe that all undergraduate mathematics major should learn how
> to program in Maple or Mathemtica (or the open-source Computer Algebra
> System SAGE), and it will do them lots of good."
>
> (at http://www.math.rutgers.edu/
On Jan 15, 2008 10:25 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I like Robert's suggestion. If the user wants n independent generic
> points, construct a large enough field (transcendence degree n) to
> contain them.
>
> A useful change Magma made relatively recently (a couple of years or
>
I like Robert's suggestion. If the user wants n independent generic
points, construct a large enough field (transcendence degree n) to
contain them.
A useful change Magma made relatively recently (a couple of years or
so ago) was to aloow points on an elliptic curve to have coordinates
in an ext
Finding integral points on an affine curve is not the same as finding
rational points on the projective model and then scaling!
Quick answer to William's question is "no", since my code always finds
rational points (and their parametrization). The same sort of thing
that Simon's gp program does
I have no problem with this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
| SAGE Version 2.9.3, Release Date: 2008-01-05 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
-
> Perhaps something like
>
> P, Q = generic_points(2)
> P+Q # this works (assuming we can do the fraction field arithmetic
> efficiently enough)
>
> where P and Q are defined over the same ring large enough to make
> them independent. (I'm not returning the new curve here because with
> a variable
On 15-Jan-08, at 8:28 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2008 7:39 AM, Enrique Gonzalez Jimenez
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Let C be a plane conic given by an equation of the form
>> C:Ax^2+Bxy+Cy^2+Dx+Ey+F=0 where A,B,C,D,E,F in ZZ.
>>
>> Is there a package or function
On Jan 15, 2008, at 5:13 AM, David Harvey wrote:
>> I tried doing this in Magma some time ago, using something like David
>> Harvey's code. I longed for a function GenericPoint() for a
>> curve, so
>> that for example
>> (x1,y1)=E.GenericPoint()
>> would return a point where x1,y1 live in the
Hi,
I've posted into ticket #258 a patch for integrating gp2c into Sage.
Obviously this may still have bugs, so it needs to be reviewed by
someone that understands the details of how gp comunicates
with Sage.
Some remarks on the class Gp in interfaces/gp.py?
Shouldn't this class have a __del
On Jan 15, 2008 7:39 AM, Enrique Gonzalez Jimenez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Let C be a plane conic given by an equation of the form
> C:Ax^2+Bxy+Cy^2+Dx+Ey+F=0 where A,B,C,D,E,F in ZZ.
>
> Is there a package or function in SAGE that compute C(ZZ)?
John Cremona -- is there code in
On Jan 15, 2008 7:24 AM, Kiran Kedlaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In Magma, many commands return multiple values, for instance:
>
> sage: %magma
> magma: XGCD(15, 10)
> 5 1 -1
>
> However, the following happens in SAGE:
>
> sage: magma.XGCD(15, 10)
> 5
>
> Is there a good way for the Magma int
Jaap Spies wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>
sage: v = vector(RDF, (1,2))
sage: plot(v, type='arrow').show()
>>^^
>>
>> Could you call this parameter something besides "type"? I
>> don't like "type" since it is a builtin function name:
>>
>> sage: type(4/5)
>>
mabshoff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sage 10.2.alpha3 is out. The combinatorics update has been
> sorted out and doctests should pass. There were also a
> whole bunch of small updates. The big push for alpha4 [at
> least on my end] will be the package update and the merging
> of the 64 bit MacIntel fixes.
>
Hi,
Let C be a plane conic given by an equation of the form
/C:Ax^2+Bxy+Cy^2+Dx+Ey+F=0 where A,B,C,D,E,F in ZZ. /
Is there a package or function in SAGE that compute C(ZZ)?
Thanks,
Enrique
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@go
In Magma, many commands return multiple values, for instance:
sage: %magma
magma: XGCD(15, 10)
5 1 -1
However, the following happens in SAGE:
sage: magma.XGCD(15, 10)
5
Is there a good way for the Magma interface to detect multiple return
values and bundle them into a Python tuple? Then I'd be
William Stein wrote:
>>> sage: v = vector(RDF, (1,2))
>>> sage: plot(v, type='arrow').show()
>^^
>
> Could you call this parameter something besides "type"? I
> don't like "type" since it is a builtin function name:
>
> sage: type(4/5)
>
>
> so using type in your
On Jan 15, 2008 5:23 AM, dpvc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity do you know of _any_ javascript equations editors
> > that are actually pretty good / finished / better than your
> > currentjsmath-based one?
>
> No. I find the state of affairs with on-line equation editors to
On Jan 15, 2008 4:48 AM, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jason Grout wrote:
> >
> > If it's convenient, could someone review trac #1575 ? I'm using it in
> > my linear algebra and calc 3 classes and it'd be nice if the patch was
> > in 2.10 so that students have access to it.
> >
> > Th
On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:08 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> I think this computation (in the quotient ring) makes sense even if
> the ideal is not prime. I had already tried to do it that way, but
> failed.
>
> However I am not quite convinced that verifying P1+(P1+P3)==(P1+P2)+P3
> is genuinely provin
> Just out of curiosity do you know of _any_ javascript equations editors
> that are actually pretty good / finished / better than your
> currentjsmath-based one?
No. I find the state of affairs with on-line equation editors to be
pretty sad at the moment. It's definitely something that needs
Jason Grout wrote:
>
> If it's convenient, could someone review trac #1575 ? I'm using it in
> my linear algebra and calc 3 classes and it'd be nice if the patch was
> in 2.10 so that students have access to it.
>
> The patch makes plotting of vectors default to arrows if the dimension
> is
On Jan 14, 9:41 pm, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 4:24 pm, "Joel B. Mohler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does anyone care that Ctrl+c
> > can leak memory from c/c++ libs?
>
> It's worse than just leaking memory; as far as I know, it's quite
> possible that hitting Ctrl-c a
If it's convenient, could someone review trac #1575 ? I'm using it in
my linear algebra and calc 3 classes and it'd be nice if the patch was
in 2.10 so that students have access to it.
The patch makes plotting of vectors default to arrows if the dimension
is <=3, default to step functions if
Something weird going on. It's now started working!
The cell was way down on a worksheet and I wondered if that had
anything to do with it
so I moved the statement to the top cell and re-ran it and it was OK
there.
Then I moved down to the bottom again and it now works there also.
Looks like it m
I've just tried using the alternative method, using Cremona naming,
to create an elliptic curve:
E=EllipticCurve("5077a")
E.gens()
When I evaluate the second statement, it returns nothing.
This works fine using the vector of coefficients method.
Should I open a Trac ticket or am I doing somethin
I think this computation (in the quotient ring) makes sense even if
the ideal is not prime. I had already tried to do it that way, but
failed.
However I am not quite convinced that verifying P1+(P1+P3)==(P1+P2)+P3
is genuinely proving anything! Since in the implementation of
elliptic curve add
Hi,
Sage 10.2.alpha3 is out. The combinatorics update has been
sorted out and doctests should pass. There were also a
whole bunch of small updates. The big push for alpha4 [at
least on my end] will be the package update and the merging
of the 64 bit MacIntel fixes.
Tarball [199MB] is the usual p
53 matches
Mail list logo
