Hi!
Sorry to bother you again, but there still is a change that I don't
understand. It is about two doctests in sage.stats, where the expected
output has become a different but equivalent expression. It boils down
to a change in the minus sign distribution of symbolic expressions, as
below.
The d
Try clearing your cache and cookies (should be Ctrl+Shift+Delete on
most browsers).
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.
Here is the data:
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.
Hello,
I have been monitoring TIOBE, a programming language popularity index.
Python has been experiencing extremely fast growth in the last few
months, rising to fourth place from seventh in a year, just behind
Java, C, and C++. It has also experienced the most increase in
popularity of any langu
Hello everyone,
I'd like to know if it is required practice to cast the types of the
objects being compared or if Sage should be able to deal with it
automatically?
Because I have a problem where I need to explicitely cast an
numpy.int32 vector unit for the comparison with a Sage Integer to be
re
Hi kcrisman,
On 15 Feb., 21:12, kcrisman wrote:
> Burcin or someone else who understands more about this (I see Mike
> responded as well) would have to say. I think the real issue is that
> we'd like to have consistency in representation, and in particular
> that certain doctests don't fail wher
> Question:
> Is it a problem if (-sqrt(2)-1/5*I)^2 returns 1/25*(-5*sqrt(2) - I)^2,
> i.e., if the minus sign is not pulled out?
> If it is, then please explain in what part of the code the minus sign
> is supposed to be pulled out.
>
Burcin or someone else who understands more about this (I see
On 15 Feb., 19:20, Simon King wrote:
> I think a segfault caused by a different choice of a gcd is nasty and
> probably a bug. But I guess Ginac is beyond my understanding.
I don't know if there is a bug in Ginac hidden (Ginac people may
contact me if they feel like hunting that issue down), but
Dear Mike and kcrisman,
Thank you for providing me with some pointers!
On 15 Feb., 17:29, kcrisman wrote:
> ...
> So it is using the Ginac gcd, and calling it 'g_gcd'. And all of that
> is in a call
>
> cdef extern from "ginac_wrap.h":
>
> which lives in devel/sage/c_lib/include. I understan
Any other contribution?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
On Feb 15, 10:59 am, Simon King wrote:
> On 15 Feb., 16:37, Simon King wrote:
>
> > Yep:
> > sage: a = SR(-1)
> > sage: b = SR(-1/5)
> > sage: sage.rings.arith.gcd(a,b)
> > 1 # or 1/5 with my patch.
>
> No, I was mistaken. Everything can be traced back to g_gcd, which is
> called in sage.symbo
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Simon King wrote:
> No, I was mistaken. Everything can be traced back to g_gcd, which is
> called in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.gcd. At that point, I
> lost track: I can not find the code of g_gcd (even "grep g_gcd" does
> not give me a hint). In particula
On 15 Feb., 16:37, Simon King wrote:
> Yep:
> sage: a = SR(-1)
> sage: b = SR(-1/5)
> sage: sage.rings.arith.gcd(a,b)
> 1 # or 1/5 with my patch.
No, I was mistaken. Everything can be traced back to g_gcd, which is
called in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.gcd. At that point, I
lost track: I
On 15 Feb., 16:34, Simon King wrote:
> Thank you! I guess this is it! Namely, I changed sage.rings.arith.gcd.
Yep:
sage: a = SR(-1)
sage: b = SR(-1/5)
sage: sage.rings.arith.gcd(a,b)
1 # or 1/5 with my patch.
However, if a different choice of a gcd can result in a segfault then
I think there is
Is this the intended behaviour? First, for an ordinary polynomial ring:
sage: R0. = QQ[]
sage: (x*y)/x
y
sage: _.parent()
Fraction Field of Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Rational Field
sage: R0((x*y)/x)
y
sage: _.parent()
Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Rational Field
kind o
Hi!
On 15 Feb., 16:23, kcrisman wrote:
> ...
> Hence in symbolic/pynac.pyx we have the following:
>
> #
> # GCD
> #
> import sage.rings.arith
> cdef public object py_gcd
On 15 Feb., 15:50, Simon King wrote:
> To symbolists:
> Please tell me whether (and how) gcd or lcm occur in
> new_Expression_from_GEx, or at least show me the code!
I also found that the gcd method of symbolic expressions was
(indirectly) changed by my patch, but again, I can't find the code:
s
On Feb 15, 9:50 am, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Working on #10771 (making gcd and lcm work nicer), I got trouble with
> the multiplication of symbolic expressions. The problem seems to boil
> down to examples of the following type:
>
> Without the patch
> sage: x = -sqrt(2)-1/5*I
> sage: x*x
> 1
Hi!
Working on #10771 (making gcd and lcm work nicer), I got trouble with
the multiplication of symbolic expressions. The problem seems to boil
down to examples of the following type:
Without the patch
sage: x = -sqrt(2)-1/5*I
sage: x*x
1/25*(5*sqrt(2) + I)^2
With the patch
sage: x = -sqrt(2)-1/
Wow!
A lot of answers!
Thank you everyone, :-) nice to see so much different contributions!
Dox
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
Can somebody please review ticket #10712? It's about adding "# long
time" to various doctests, and also rewriting a few doctests taking an
excessive time.
Thanks,
Jeroen.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sag
I have been trying to prepare a class on algebraic geometry, and make
some exercises (involving resultants and discriminants of polynomials)
in sage.
I have noticed the following:
1) Discriminant is not defined for multivariate polynomial rings
(handled by libsingular), they could be easily imple
22 matches
Mail list logo
