Hi Nathan,
> On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:33:19 AM UTC+11, vdelecroix wrote:
>>
>> * the matplotlib widgets: Sage right now uses matplotlib for main
>> graphics capabilities. matplpotlib comes with a very complete and
>> useful library for making interactive graphics in native windows (with
>
William Stein wrote:
>> IIRC Maple used to have something like *& to denote matrix
>> multiplication, don't know if this is still the case,
>
> Hey, you're right-ish:
>
> http://kb.iu.edu/data/afbm.html
>
> They don't use * either, they use "." (like in Mathematica). They
> deprecated *&.
Ac
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:53 PM, R. Andrew Ohana
> wrote:
> > This doesn't at least look to be a regression, so much as a long term
> bug.
>
> Do you mean it isn't a regression *resulting from the git
> reorganization*?
I mean it doesn't lo
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:53 PM, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> This doesn't at least look to be a regression, so much as a long term bug.
Do you mean it isn't a regression *resulting from the git
reorganization*? Or do you mean that you think this has always been
broken?
Install Sage as one user, the
This doesn't at least look to be a regression, so much as a long term bug.
The offending path has always been a subpath of SAGE_ROOT since sage was
initially checked into a repository (it was SAGE_ROOT/data/extcode/octave
before). My guess is that if you are only experiencing issues with recent
ver
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Nathaniel,
>
> are you sure that you talk about actual matrices? Or do you just talk
> about 2-dimensional arrays?
Sure -- this is a useful distinction, and as far as it goes, I'm
talking about arrays. But people do in fact want to do the o
Hi Volker,
On 2014-03-09, Volker Braun wrote:
> --=_Part_25_1398588.1394377030563
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 2:16:51 PM UTC, Simon King wrote:
>>
>> class Cs(Category):
>> class Finite(CategoryWithAxiom):
>> class ParentCla
On 2014-03-10, Simon King wrote:
> In mathematics, a lot of different multiplication symbols are in use.
> For example,
Here I did a wrong edit. Sorry. I meant to say:
FOR FUNCTIONS, \cdot usually denotes pointwise multiplication
> ..., whereas
> \star denotes convolution and \circ denotes comp
Hi Nathaniel,
are you sure that you talk about actual matrices? Or do you just talk
about 2-dimensional arrays?
By the way, how could your PEP possibly be relevant to Python? IIRC,
there neither is a matrix type nor an array type in Python, thus, it
makes no sense whatsoever to theoretise about s
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:20:50 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
>>> understand what you're trying to say here:
>>>
>>> The probl
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On 2014-03-09, William Stein wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:20:50 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
understand what
On 2014-03-09 20:40, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
Indeed, it's clear from everyone's responses here that I at least need
to add a new section talking about these things explicitly, and also
about why elementwise-* is actually used so often in practice in numeric
computation (as opposed dto symbolic com
On 2014-03-09 20:40, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
In brief, the issue is that elementwise-* is a fine convention and you
can use it to write useful code, and matrix-multiply-* is a fine
convention and you can use it to write useful code, but if you then try
to glue those two pieces of code together int
On 2014-03-09, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:20:50 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
>>> understand what you're trying to say here:
>>>
>>> The problem is that the pr
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:20:50 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
>> understand what you're trying to say here:
>>
>> The problem is that the presence of two different duck-types for numeri
Hi,
I install sage-6.x systemwide for https://cloud.sagemath.com. Now it
seems impossible for a normal user to use the octave interface (and
probably many others), which is a _major_ regression:
sage: octave.eval('rand(2)')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/usr/local/sage/sage-6.2/
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:20:50 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
> understand what you're trying to say here:
>
> The problem is that the presence of two different duck-types for numeric
> data -- one where * means matrix multiply,
I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
understand what you're trying to say here:
The problem is that the presence of two different duck-types for numeric
data -- one where * means matrix multiply, and one where * means
elementwise multiplication -- make it impossible t
On 2014-03-09, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2014-03-09 16:09, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
>> I definitely want to hear your feedback.
> I completely agree with John Cremona: please keep * for matrix
> multiplication. Why not add a new dedicated operator for elementwise
> multiplication and use * for ma
On 2014-03-09 18:19, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
In your PEP, you say that using * for matrix multiplication is a bad
idea, but without any justification (the only justification is
variations on "it's a bad idea" without reasons).
From reading your PEP, it's clear that you don't like numpy.matrix but
On 2014-03-09 16:09, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
I definitely want to hear your feedback.
I completely agree with John Cremona: please keep * for matrix
multiplication. Why not add a new dedicated operator for elementwise
multiplication and use * for matrix multiplication?
In your PEP, you say tha
I find it very hard to imagine Sage using anything other than * (as in
A*B) for normal matrix multiplication, as anything else would alienate
all of its mathematical users. I would have no reason at all ever to
have an element-wise matrix product!
John Cremona
On 9 March 2014 15:09, wrote:
> G
Each instance of the pari/GP interpreter interface has its own list of
variable names, which is initialised to length 1024 but extended (by
doubling) as needed (see src/sage/interfaces/gp.py). It seems that
this extension does not work after a certain number of doublings.
This may be some limitati
Greetings, Sage Ones,
Some of you may have already seen this, but I've started working on a draft
PEP for adding a dedicated operator for matrix multiplication to Python:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/4351
https://github.com/njsmith/numpy/blob/matmul-pep/doc/neps/return-of-revenge-of-m
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 2:16:51 PM UTC, Simon King wrote:
>
> class Cs(Category):
> class Finite(CategoryWithAxiom):
> class ParentClass:
> def some_method(self):
> return "I am a finite c"
> is also (I think) *sufficiently* explicit
Hi Volker,
On 2014-03-09, Volker Braun wrote:
> "Explicit from the context" is an oxymoron. If you can only be figure it=20
> out from the context, then it is by definition implicit. Only something=20
> that is written down in Python code is explicit in Python.
But what other syntax do you sugge
"Explicit from the context" is an oxymoron. If you can only be figure it
out from the context, then it is by definition implicit. Only something
that is written down in Python code is explicit in Python. I guess that is
a bit of an English language issue.
Or, as the old joke goes, "It depends
On Friday, 7 March 2014 23:14:44 UTC+11, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote:
>
> Dear Sage developers,
>
> This is a call for vote about the ticket:
>
> #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions [1]
>
>
Dear Nicolas,
I think that it is good that this is being done (thank you!) but,
Fixed in a later version.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@
The "sage" variable in various interpreters is used to keep references to
whatever is wrapped in Sage Python objects. Have you considered using the
pari shared library ("pari" in Sage) instead of the gp interface? Its much
faster, too.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
I'm trying to find asymptotic bounds for the number of polynomials of
degree $n$ and height $\leq N$ with a specific Galois group (e.g.
$Syl_2(S_n)$, or in the example below $S_n$). I build all monic polynomials
with the given parameters, then ask pari for the order of their Galois
groups using
31 matches
Mail list logo
