On Dec 2, 10:55 pm, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> But for "conjugate transpose" one can just introduce operator ^*, as
> usually
> the conjugate transpose of $A$ is denoted by $A^*$.
Accepted notation is another can of worms. Conjugate-transpose can be
an exponent that is a star, dagger or the letter
Right, "adjoint" should mean "conjugate transpose", and not "classical
adjoint/adjugate".
But for "conjugate transpose" one can just introduce operator ^*, as
usually
the conjugate transpose of $A$ is denoted by $A^*$.
Dunno how much Sage code this would break, though...
Dmitrii
On Dec 2, 12:47
Jean-Philippe,
if you feel adventurous, you might try using PPL with Sage, as Volker
suggests.
I understand that the basic functionality is already there.
You can also develop a Cython interface to cddlib, to get Sage on par
with Polymake in this regard.
Dmitrii
--
To post to this group, send a
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 at 06:28PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On this note: http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/
Oooh, that's cool. I like the links on trac. Now I need to go and fix my
patches that don't apply any more.
Dan
--
--- Dan Drake
- http://mathsci.kaist.ac.kr/~drake
--
Planet Math page (below) says H. Eves (Elementary Matrix Theory, Dover
publications, 1980) uses "tranjugate." Maybe that is the solution
here. ;-)
Thanks, Gonzalo, John and KDC - I continue to learn a lot from the
collective knowledge here.
I do not know the source of any of these terms, but he
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:32 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 2, 10:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> >> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
>> >> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two w
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:59 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>> Do you have a reference for this convention? I had never seen the word
>> "adjugate" before.
>
> At least in an older edition of Lay's Linear Algebra book (fairly
> widely used) uses this, and points out there is a "real" adjoint which
> is not c
Query: why would we use wolfram alpha, when (for example) the
University of Washington has a site license for mathematica? It would
be more efficient, and take less work to write mathematica scripts to
double-check our work, and ask William (or another UW person) to run
the tests on a UW machine?
On 11/30/2010 02:49 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:50 PM, John H Palmieri
> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 2:24 pm, Niles wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 9:11 am, John Cremona wrote:
>>>
Can anyone tell me how to make just part of the pdf reference manual,
specifically the part from
On Dec 2, 10:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> >> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
> >> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a
> >> > release cycle later to see that some corn
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
>> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a
>> > release cycle later to see that some corner case was missed that
>> > affected a doctest far aw
> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a
> > release cycle later to see that some corner case was missed that
> > affected a doctest far away and now they need a tiny fix + rebase +
> > context
On Dec 2, 8:51 pm, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:16 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> > What you call the classical adjoint is really the adjugate. That is
> > abbreviated to adj, and since there is also an adjoint, it is a common
> > error to call the adjugate the adjoint.
>
> Do
On 2 December 2010 18:20, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On the topic of verifying tests, I think internal consistency checks
> are much better, both pedagogically and for verifiability, than
> external checks against other (perhaps inaccessible) systems. For
> example, the statement above that checks
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:28 PM, pang wrote:
>>> On 1 dic, 17:40, David Kirkby wrote:
. But for someone that regularly submits tickets, if they can't be bothered
to test them
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:16 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> What you call the classical adjoint is really the adjugate. That is
> abbreviated to adj, and since there is also an adjoint, it is a common
> error to call the adjugate the adjoint.
Do you have a reference for this convention? I had never se
On 12/2/10 2:03 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
If you are looking for an easy ticket to review for practice, see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10422
which is just a single-character change to the documentation.
Rob
I've added it to the "beginner" list:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac
To follow up my own thing, maybe it would be possible to write a spkg-
check that tries to detect nose, exits gracefully if it's not there,
and otherwise uses a system nose... though of course then one would be
using the system Python... wouldn't one?
- kcrisman
--
To post to this group, send an
On Dec 2, 1:46 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 12/2/10 12:42 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose
> > from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg-
> > check that relied on the internet... but that wouldn't be ideal, I
> >
If you are looking for an easy ticket to review for practice, see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10422
which is just a single-character change to the documentation.
Rob
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an ema
On Dec 1, 9:02 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> I've also filed a bug with
>Sage:http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10365
>
> I've filed an enhancement request with
> Sage:http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10366
>
Thanks for your help; those do work for me now.
Thanks for filing those t
On Dec 2, 10:20 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On the topic of verifying tests, I think internal consistency checks
> are much better, both pedagogically and for verifiability, than
> external checks against other (perhaps inaccessible) systems. For
> example, the statement above that checks a power
On 12/2/10 12:42 PM, kcrisman wrote:
That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose
from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg-
check that relied on the internet... but that wouldn't be ideal, I
think.
But that would also prevent yet another spkg to
> >> I suggested 'nose' was added a long time ago
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/928632...
>
> >> the only person to reply (Robert Bradshaw) disagreed.
>
> I think there's a distinction between an spkg that people might find
> useful to use with Sage, and an s
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>>> I do think it would be good to start using nosetest
>>> (http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.2/) to
>>> automatically run all functions that start with "test_" in all
On 2 December 2010 16:31, RegB <2regburg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Disclaimer; I am not a bar room lawyer, etc.
>
> I think this phrase may be key;
> "...incidental results or small groups of results from Wolfram|Alpha
> on non-commercial websites and blogs..."
> It depends on one's working defini
> But its less clear there is an agreed alternative for HTTPSconnections.
I suppose it is mostly by convention rather than an official port
assignment. Default ports for HTTP and HTTPS are 80 and 443,
respectively. Since non-root users usually cannot use the first 1024
ports, 8080 gets used for HT
My personal roadmap for Sage's Polyhedron class is:
1) wait until PPL is a standard spkg, see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10039
Right now Sage is communicating with cddlib via virtual terminals by
printing/parsing ascii text. This is obviously slow. The PPL Cython
interface, which
Disclaimer; I am not a bar room lawyer, etc.
I think this phrase may be key;
"...incidental results or small groups of results from Wolfram|Alpha
on non-commercial websites and blogs..."
It depends on one's working definition of "small", maybe they are
deliberately ambiguous here.
"A dozen or so..
My message is in two parts.
The first one is more about Polymake vs Sage. The second is about how
polytopes are constructed in Sage.
For a couple of weeks now, I need to work with polytopes and the
Polyhedron class.
I'm a student currently at Techniche Universität Berlin, so Polyma
> For a complex square matrix the genuine adjoint is denoted A^* and is
> the conjugate transpose. That is a special case of the adjoint of a
> linear operator on an inner product space (in the case of C^n with the
> standard inner product).
That's what I thought, too. We should definitely chan
Thanks. I will monitor this ticket an starting building it on my own.
I will update you or the ticket if I have any problems.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> It would be interesting to compare Intel MKL vs. AMD ACML vs. threaded
> ATLAS.
>
> The most useful optimization r
On 1 December 2010 21:00, Adam wrote:
> To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
> expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
> running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
> expected. The main issue I could see with changing the
On 1 December 2010 20:58, Adam wrote:
> To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
> expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
> running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
> expected. The main issue I could see with changing the
My opinion:
What you call the classical adjoint is really the adjugate. That is
abbreviated to adj, and since there is also an adjoint, it is a common
error to call the adjugate the adjoint.
I would not be surprised if there plenty of elementary linear algebra
texts out there who describe adj(A)
35 matches
Mail list logo
