Re: [sage-devel] Request to extend the binomial function by the reflection formula

Am 2016-04-04 um 18:02 schrieb Peter Luschny: > > Sage seems to use the definition from Concrete Mathematics by Graham, >> Knuth and Patashnik: >> That gives e.g. >> sage: binomial(-4, 5) >> -56 > > Right. GKP call it "upper negation". If you look at my demo-function > you will see that

Re: [sage-devel] citing Sage: the SageMath version

Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Dept. On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 1:52:44 PM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote: > > Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Dept. > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:25:35 PM UTC+2, Ursula Whitcher wrote: >> >> Would SageMath Software be better?

Re: [sage-devel] citing Sage: the SageMath version

Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Dept. On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:25:35 PM UTC+2, Ursula Whitcher wrote: > > Would SageMath Software be better? Isn't SageMath Mathematics Software > a little redundant? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: [sage-devel] citing Sage: the SageMath version

On 4/1/2016 1:34 AM, Daniel Krenn wrote: > I suggest something like: > > @Manual{SageMath:2016:7.1, >key = {SageMath}, >author = {The SageMath Developers}, >title ={{SageMath} {M}athematics {S}oftware ({V}ersion 7.1)}, >note =

[sage-devel] Re: Error building documentation

Whichever ticket it is, after checking it out, you might try "git merge develop" (assuming your "develop" branch is reasonably up to date). There have been some recent changes in docbuilding, for example the location of the built documentation, that could be causing problems when you use

[sage-devel] Re: Error building documentation

there is no git branch on #16804. Which ticket did you mean? On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 6:14:53 PM UTC+1, jhonrubia6 wrote: > > Hi, > I've just checkout the branch ticket #16804, and I get an error building > the documentation I can not clean (tried $make doc-clean unsuccesfully). > some clue?

[sage-devel] Error building documentation

Hi, I've just checkout the branch ticket #16804, and I get an error building the documentation I can not clean (tried $make doc-clean unsuccesfully). some clue? [reference] loading pickled environment... not yet created [reference] Compiling the master document [reference] WARNING:

Re: [sage-devel] Request to extend the binomial function by the reflection formula

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:39:42 AM UTC-7, Daniel Krenn wrote: > > On 2016-04-03 20:03, Peter Luschny wrote: > > I have already reported the unsatisfactory state of the binomial > > function as implemented in Sage on 'Ask Sage' and had opened > > a request for enhancement with ticket

Re: [sage-devel] Request to extend the binomial function by the reflection formula

> Sage seems to use the definition from Concrete Mathematics by Graham, > Knuth and Patashnik: > That gives e.g. > sage: binomial(-4, 5) > -56 Right. GKP call it "upper negation". If you look at my demo-function you will see that this condition is preserved in the suggested extension (case 3).

Re: [sage-devel] Request to extend the binomial function by the reflection formula

On 2016-04-03 20:03, Peter Luschny wrote: > I have already reported the unsatisfactory state of the binomial > function as implemented in Sage on 'Ask Sage' and had opened > a request for enhancement with ticket #17123. On this ticket there were arguments against this change of the default

Re: [sage-devel] Request to extend the binomial function by the reflection formula

Sage seems to use the definition from Concrete Mathematics by Graham, Knuth and Patashnik: binomial(r, k) = r*(r-1)*...*(r-k+1)/(k * (k-1) *...* 1) if k >= 0 and r any real number, and binomial(r, k) = 0 if k < 0 That gives e.g. sage: binomial(-4, 5) -56 Though Peter's suggestion

[sage-devel] Re: Request to extend the binomial function by the reflection formula

I haven't thought about this carefully enough to have an opinion yet. But definitely -1 to the status quo! If we don't implement binomial(n, k) in a mathematically meaningful way for k < 0, it would be better to raise a ValueError rather than silently returning 0. Kiran On Sunday, April 3,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: SageMath for Windows installer

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Sebastien Gouezel wrote: > > > Le lundi 4 avril 2016 11:48:34 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit : >> >> >> Yes, I think this approach is mainly useful for newcomers. The >> majority of the problems you mentioned came in due to already having >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: SageMath for Windows installer

Le lundi 4 avril 2016 11:48:34 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit : > > > Yes, I think this approach is mainly useful for newcomers. The > majority of the problems you mentioned came in due to already having > various bits of this installed. I'm not quite sure I understand the point about latex. >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: SageMath for Windows installer

Thanks for giving it a try! On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Sebastien Gouezel wrote: > Just tried it (on Windows 10 Pro 64 bits). In the end, it works, but I had > to work a little bit for this: > > - when installing docker, it removed my git and installed its own

[sage-devel] Re: SageMath for Windows installer

Just tried it (on Windows 10 Pro 64 bits). In the end, it works, but I had to work a little bit for this: - when installing docker, it removed my git and installed its own git instead, without asking for anything. A little bit rude, as I liked my version better... - more serious, the sagemath