OK, this is now #12438!
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12438
--
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/
On 2/4/12 12:50 PM, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:30 am, Jason Grout wrote:
I was thinking of confusion for the user, because the user has to be
more careful about how they call the function because the arguments
change. Now, this can be alleviated by the user using keyword
arguments
On Feb 4, 11:30 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> I was thinking of confusion for the user, because the user has to be
> more careful about how they call the function because the arguments
> change. Now, this can be alleviated by the user using keyword
> arguments, or paying attention and being aware of
On 2/4/12 12:26 PM, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:21 am, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/4/12 11:24 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2012 11:43:44 PM UTC+8, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
But in definite integrals the variable of integration is a dummy one
and does n
On Feb 4, 11:21 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 2/4/12 11:24 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2012 11:43:44 PM UTC+8, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
>
> > But in definite integrals the variable of integration is a dummy one
> > and does not exist out of the integral!
>
> > +1
On 2/4/12 11:24 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2012 11:43:44 PM UTC+8, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
But in definite integrals the variable of integration is a dummy one
and does not exist out of the integral!
+1. This behavior makes no sense to me.
So what happens in a
On Saturday, February 4, 2012 11:43:44 PM UTC+8, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> But in definite integrals the variable of integration is a dummy one
> and does not exist out of the integral!
+1. This behavior makes no sense to me.
-Keshav
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !
--
To
On Feb 4, 4:31 am, P Purkayastha wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2012 6:10:07 AM UTC+8, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > It is a known bug? Or maybe not considered a bug at all? Quick search
> > does not show anything related...
>
> > sage: f(x) = x
> > sage: f
> > x |--> x
> > sage:
On Saturday, February 4, 2012 7:04:32 AM UTC+8, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> This might be a different problem. Shouldn't this give a syntax
> error, folks?
>
> sage: h(x,y) = x+y
> sage: h(3)
> y + 3
>
> ??? I thought the whole *point* of the h(x,y) notation was to specify
> the order - but the
On Saturday, February 4, 2012 6:10:07 AM UTC+8, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> It is a known bug? Or maybe not considered a bug at all? Quick search
> does not show anything related...
>
> sage: f(x) = x
> sage: f
> x |--> x
> sage: integral(f, x)
> x |--> 1/2*x^2
> sage: integr
On Feb 3, 5:10 pm, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It is a known bug? Or maybe not considered a bug at all? Quick search
> does not show anything related...
>
> sage: f(x) = x
> sage: f
> x |--> x
> sage: integral(f, x)
> x |--> 1/2*x^2
> sage: integral(f, x, 0, 1)
> x |--> 1/2
>
> The la
11 matches
Mail list logo
