Hi folks,
I sent the collected feedback on this issue to python-dev:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-November/083493.html
If you are interested, at this point please follow up any further
discussion directly on python-dev. I'll do my best to answer any
questions there, but I'd
Sébastien Labbé wrote:
> Bonjour,
>
> This week, I was drawing plot vector field using two ways : (1)
> plot_vector_field and (2) by simply suming up plenty of arrows as I
> wished. Since their was a fixed point somewhere, I came up with the
> problem of drawing a zero length arrow. Using sage
On Nov 7, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
[...]
>>> Going back to your example, f(5,y) would just return a symbolic
>>> expression, so
>>>
>>> sage: f(x,y)=2*x+3*y
>>> sage: plot( f(5,y), (y, -10,10))
>>>
>>> would be equivalent to
>>>
>>> sage: plot( 10+3*y, (y, -10,10))
>>>
>>> which w
Bonjour,
This week, I was drawing plot vector field using two ways : (1)
plot_vector_field and (2) by simply suming up plenty of arrows as I wished.
Since their was a fixed point somewhere, I came up with the problem of
drawing a zero length arrow. Using sage 3.1.4, I get a zero division error.
Wh
On Sep 28, 8:02 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Harald Schilly
> > Another approach would be to build a special application using Sage as
> > a server based service and embedding it a bit better into theandroid
> > application infrastructure. This
Hi Robert,
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:28:29 -0800
Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:33:52 -0800
> > Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
Em Sex, 2008-11-07 às 12:25 -0800, Georg S. Weber escreveu:
> Ahh,
>
> better call it "graduate mode" instead of "pedantic mode", at least in
> the documentation.
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
> gsw
I'd prefer blue-pill mode and red-pill mode :)
Ronan
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~--
Ahh,
better call it "graduate mode" instead of "pedantic mode", at least in
the documentation.
:-)
Cheers,
gsw
On 7 Nov., 21:14, "Georg S. Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> summarizing ideas and arguments from this thread gives the following
> proposal:
>
> Sage would benefit fro
Hi all,
summarizing ideas and arguments from this thread gives the following
proposal:
Sage would benefit from the possibility to work in two different
modes, a "classroom mode", and a "pedantic mode".
In the classroom mode, e.g. symbolic expressions would be callable,
and quite some guessing w
> Here are some
> possibilities:
>
>
>
> plot( f(x=5), (y, -10,10))
>
> plot( f(x=5,y=y), (y, -10,10))
>
> plot( f(5,None), (y, -10,10))
>
> plot( f(5,y), (y, -10,10))
>
> g(y) = f(5,y)
> plot(g, (y, -10,10))
> That last one seemed too verbose
>
> Jason
>
Personally I like allowing cal
Here's an idea that could make everyone happy. How about:
--symbolic expressions are not callable, the functional notation is
required,
--on startup, SAGE has defined x to be... the identity ! so it is
callable.
one would need to make sure that f(g) means composition of functions,
so that, say s
> How would x^2 being callable help? Can you give a use case for showing
> that x^2 being callable is much easier/simpler than without it being
> callable?
>
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be callable; I'm just asking for your opinion.
Sorry, it is probably my ignorance showing here. It sounde
OK, that's now #4463.
On Nov 7, 8:21 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 6:13 am, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I just had one timeout failure on a PPC mac running 10.4, on modular/
> > abvar/homspace.py, plus the following malloc error which didn't cause
> > the test
On Nov 7, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:33:52 -0800
> Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently some people are writing a replacement for Abramowitz and
>>> Stegun's Handbook of Mathematic
kcrisman wrote:
>
> If x^2 isn't callable, though, I might as well not use Sage in the
> undergraduate classroom, or at least not ask any students to use it.
> Well, maybe that's a stretch for me to claim? I'm not sure, honestly,
> but ... it's just that computer mathematics systems are pedanti
On Nov 5, 2008, at 15:44 , mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> here goes 3.2.alpha3 - somewhat later than planned. Hopefully we
> fixed all numerical doctest noise from #788 (I even reverted a small
> number of changes) and otherwise merged a couple other nice patches.
>
> If this release buil
On Nov 7, 6:13 am, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just had one timeout failure on a PPC mac running 10.4, on modular/
> abvar/homspace.py, plus the following malloc error which didn't cause
> the test to fail but maybe its worth noting:
>
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/libs/pari/gen.pyx
> p
I just had one timeout failure on a PPC mac running 10.4, on modular/
abvar/homspace.py, plus the following malloc error which didn't cause
the test to fail but maybe its worth noting:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/libs/pari/gen.pyx
python(5728) malloc: *** vm_allocate(size=409600) failed (error
c
> >>> The current syntax allows this:
>
> >>> sage: f(x,y) = a*x + b*y
> >>> sage: f(5)
> >>> b*y + 5*a
> >>> sage: f(5)(5)
> >>> b*y + 25
>
> >>> I think the last line should be a syntax error.
>
> >> I agree, since f was explicitly defined with variables x and y.
>
> >> f(5) should return a fu
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:40:17 -0600
> Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Burcin Erocal wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:26:35 -0800
>>> "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:40:17 -0600
Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Burcin Erocal wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:26:35 -0800
> > "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> plot( f(x=5), (y, -10
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:26:35 -0800
> "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
plot( f(x=5), (y, -10,10))
plot( f(x=5,y=y), (y, -10,10))
plot( f(5,None), (y, -10,10))
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:26:35 -0800
"Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> plot( f(x=5), (y, -10,10))
> >>
> >> plot( f(x=5,y=y), (y, -10,10))
> >>
> >> plot( f(5,None), (y, -10,10))
> >>
> >> plot( f(5,y), (y, -10
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> plot( f(x=5), (y, -10,10))
>>
>> plot( f(x=5,y=y), (y, -10,10))
>>
>> plot( f(5,None), (y, -10,10))
>>
>> plot( f(5,y), (y, -10,10))
>>
>> g(y) = f(5,y)
>> plot(g, (y, -10,10))
>> That last one seemed too verbose
>
>
> I gue
OK so I don't know my alphabet.
2008/11/7 Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> I think it is very handy to be able to partially evaluate an
> expression. Do you propose a syntax that lets you effectively do f(5)
> and get a function back? For example, if I want to plot a level curve
> of f
Jason Grout wrote:
> Burcin Erocal wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:14:26 -0800 (PST)
>> Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Team,
>>>
>>> the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
>>> ---
>>> Commutative:
>>> 1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,...,
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:14:26 -0800 (PST)
> Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Team,
>>
>> the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
>> ---
>> Commutative:
>> 1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,..., then everybody
>> would at le
Hi John,
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:46 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is also the issue of variable ordering. e.g.
>
> sage: var('long_variable_name another_long_name')
> (long_variable_name, another_long_name)
> sage: f = long_variable_name - another_long_name
> sage: f(1,2)
2008/11/7 Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:14:26 -0800 (PST)
> Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Team,
>>
>> the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
>> ---
>> Commutative:
>> 1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,..., t
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:33:52 -0800
Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> > Apparently some people are writing a replacement for Abramowitz and
> > Stegun's Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs,
> > and Mathematical T
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Team,
>
> the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
> ---
> Commutative:
> 1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,..., then everybody
> would at least correctly guess that f(1,2
Dear Team,
the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
---
Commutative:
1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,..., then everybody
would at least correctly guess that f(1,2,3,...) has the intended
meaning "evalutation of f at x=1, y=2, z=3,..."
2. Some people would ac
32 matches
Mail list logo
