There has been lots of conversation recently on adding an infix matrix
multiplication operator to Python, pushed by some folks from the
numpy/scipy community, and backed by pandas and some other projects.
Guido has practically accepted the proposal to make @ an infix matrix
multiplication opera
-- Forwarded message --
From: James Wan
Date: 11 March 2014 11:19
Subject: Conference announcement: ICMS 2014
To: nmbrt...@listserv.nodak.edu
Dear number theorists,
Please forward this to any potentially interested
colleagues and students!
The 4th International
Congress on
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:48 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> In retrospect, it appears that the OP should have asked the following
>> question: From the perspective of Sage, if Python were to have
>> another arithmetic operator (denoted @)
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
It's because since Sage 5.12 simplify_radical() has been removed from
simplify_full() due to many issues - -
OK. Maybe someone can add
Does not apply simplify_radical, see :trac:`12737`.
to /src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx after line 7779.
--
Jo
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:48 PM, William Stein wrote:
> In retrospect, it appears that the OP should have asked the following
> question: From the perspective of Sage, if Python were to have
> another arithmetic operator (denoted @) with identical precedence
> rules to *, would we use it for any
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:37:50 AM UTC-4, Simon King wrote:
> That's why I'd appreciate an option --remote_branch (or --trac_branch)
> for "sage -dev push", and would also appreciate if "sage -dev push"
> would recognise if a public branch has already been assigned to the
> ticket, so that
Le samedi 15 mars 2014 12:42:42 UTC+1, Jori Mantysalo a écrit :
>
> So it does not simplify. But (log(8)/log(2)).full_simplify() returns
> log(8)/log(2), not 3. OK, I can do .simplify_radical(), but why
> full_simplify() doesn't try it?
>
It's because since Sage 5.12 simplify_radical() has be
On 15 March 2014 04:42, Jori Mantysalo wrote:
> Solving equations:
>
> solve(e^x==e^3, x) --> [x == 3]
> solve(2^x==2^3, x) --> [x == log(8)/log(2)]
>
> So it does not simplify. But (log(8)/log(2)).full_simplify() returns
> log(8)/log(2), not 3. OK, I can do .simplify_radical(), but why
> full
Solving equations:
solve(e^x==e^3, x) --> [x == 3]
solve(2^x==2^3, x) --> [x == log(8)/log(2)]
So it does not simplify. But (log(8)/log(2)).full_simplify() returns
log(8)/log(2), not 3. OK, I can do .simplify_radical(), but why
full_simplify() doesn't try it?
I also tried
solve(2^x+3^x=
Hi Ralf,
On 2014-03-15, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>> And similarly, if the user has write permission to the branch (e.g.,
>> public branch) attached to a ticket, then
>> sage -dev push
>> should push *there* (and not to a new branch u/UserName/...).
>>
>
> This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/tic
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:04:54 PM UTC+1, Simon King wrote:
>
> ... Apparently you need to use git
> "the hard way" to let your local branch be pushed to a public branch on
> trac, and then you have to manually edit the branch field on trac to
> point to the public branch.
>
> I keep fo
11 matches
Mail list logo
