On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, kcrisman wrote:
>> sage: var('x,y')
>> (x, y)
>> sage: f = -x-y
>> sage: integrate(f)
>> -1/2*x^2 - x*y
>> sage: integrate(f+x) # unambiguous?
>> -1/2*y^2
>> sage: integrate(f+y) # unambiguous?
>> -1/2*x^2
>> sage: integrate(f) + integrate(x)
>> -x*y
>> sage: integrate(f) +
> sage: var('x,y')
> (x, y)
> sage: f = -x-y
> sage: integrate(f)
> -1/2*x^2 - x*y
> sage: integrate(f+x) # unambiguous?
> -1/2*y^2
> sage: integrate(f+y) # unambiguous?
> -1/2*x^2
> sage: integrate(f) + integrate(x)
> -x*y
> sage: integrate(f) + integrate(y)
> -1/2*x^2 - x*y + 1/2*y^2
>
I me
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:44 PM, kcrisman wrote:
While (1) and (2) syntaxes are encouraged, (3) will
remain valid until we sort out the coersion issue
and update all doctests, tutorial etc. BTW, I did update
some of
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:44 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>> > While (1) and (2) syntaxes are encouraged, (3) will
>> > remain valid until we sort out the coersion issue
>> > and update all doctests, tutorial etc. BTW, I did update
>> > some of the doctests including the docstrings that you get
>> > v
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:09 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> I noticed the other day that integrate(sin(x), (x, 0, pi)) seemed to
>> just hang. There was no error--it just hung.
>
> That is WEIRD given that maxima doesn't go interactive
On Aug 25, 2009, at 5:44 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> I know I'm losing this one, but for what it's worth, I think that not
> only should (1), (2), and (3) be supported, but that integrate(f)
> should do what is obvious where the variable is unambiguous. :)
>
sage: var('x,y')
(x, y)
sage: f = -x-y
s
I know I'm losing this one, but for what it's worth, I think that not
only should (1), (2), and (3) be supported, but that integrate(f)
should do what is obvious where the variable is unambiguous. :)
>
> > While (1) and (2) syntaxes are encouraged, (3) will
> > remain valid until we sort out th
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>>
>> and will also move symbolic integration as a sub-class
>> of SFunction into new symbolics.
>>
>>
>>
Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>
> and will also move symbolic integration as a sub-class
> of SFunction into new symbolics.
>
>
> Currently, Sage allows omitting variable of integration for co
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>
> Patches are up and reviews are welcome.
>
>
> While (1) and (2) syntaxes are encouraged, (3) will
> remain valid until we sort out the coersion issue
> and update all doctests, tuto
Hi,
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
Patches are up and reviews are welcome.
While (1) and (2) syntaxes are encouraged, (3) will
remain valid until we sort out the coersion issue
and update all doctests, tutorial etc. BTW, I did update
some of the doctests including the docstr
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>>> Given we are moving to a new settings, I am proposing that we make
>>> integration syntax bit stricter and consistent now. In particular, we allow
>>> only
>>> following inputs as valid
>>>
>>> (1) integrate
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:56 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> Let's see, in sage then you have the following syntax.
> (x,y) means a list
Not at all. (x, y) is a tuple. [x, y] is a list.
> f(x,y) means a function application
> (x+y) means grouping for arithmetic.
> RationalField(x) means, uh, sortof "i
On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:56 PM, rjf wrote:
> Let's see, in sage then you have the following syntax.
> (x,y) means a list
Technically, a tuple (immutable, where as lists (using [] like
maxima) are mutable).
> f(x,y) means a function application
That's pretty standard in mathematics and progra
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> Let's see, in sage then you have the following syntax.
> (x,y) means a list
> f(x,y) means a function application
> (x+y) means grouping for arithmetic.
> RationalField(x) means, uh, sortof "in indeterminate..."
> Integer(4) means, uh, set the
Let's see, in sage then you have the following syntax.
(x,y) means a list
f(x,y) means a function application
(x+y) means grouping for arithmetic.
RationalField(x) means, uh, sortof "in indeterminate..."
Integer(4) means, uh, set the type? force a coercion?
Are there any other distinct uses
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Golam Mortuza
>> Hossain wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>>>
>>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>>>
>>> and will also move symbolic i
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Golam Mortuza
>> Hossain wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>>>
>>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>>>
>>> and will also move symbolic i
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Golam Mortuza
> Hossain wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>>
>> and will also move symbolic integration as a sub-class
>> of SFunction into new symbolics.
>>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>
> and will also move symbolic integration as a sub-class
> of SFunction into new symbolics.
>
>
> Currently, Sage allows omitting
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>>
(2) integrate( f(x), (x,a,b) )
(3) integrate( f(x), x, a, b)
>>
>> Let's just choose one. I'm torn, but prefer (3) with a and b optional
>> variables.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>
> H
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>>> (1) integrate( f(x), x)
>>> (2) integrate( f(x), (x,a,b) )
>>> (3) integrate( f(x), x, a, b)
>>
>> So I prefer (1) and (2).
>
> Fine by me -- +1 to (1) and (2).
Same here. I'm not opposed to option (3), but if we're going to cut it
down that'd be
>> (1) integrate( f(x), x)
>> (2) integrate( f(x), (x,a,b) )
>> (3) integrate( f(x), x, a, b)
>
> So I prefer (1) and (2).
Fine by me -- +1 to (1) and (2).
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscri
Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>
> and will also move symbolic integration as a sub-class
> of SFunction into new symbolics.
>
>
> Currently, Sage allows omitting variable of integration for co
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>>
(2) integrate( f(x), (x,a,b) )
(3) integrate( f(x), x, a, b)
>>
>> Let's just choose one. I'm torn, but prefer (3) with a and b optional
>> variables.
>>
>> Nick
>>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>>> (2) integrate( f(x), (x,a,b) )
>>> (3) integrate( f(x), x, a, b)
>
> Let's just choose one. I'm torn, but prefer (3) with a and b optional
> variables.
I am for 2), it's consistent with mathematica, e.g. if you have
multiple integrati
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>>> (2) integrate( f(x), (x,a,b) )
>>> (3) integrate( f(x), x, a, b)
>
> Let's just choose one. I'm torn, but prefer (3) with a and b optional
> variables.
>
> Nick
>
Hmm. If I had to choose one of these:
> (1) integrate( f(x), x)
> (2)
>> (2) integrate( f(x), (x,a,b) )
>> (3) integrate( f(x), x, a, b)
Let's just choose one. I'm torn, but prefer (3) with a and b optional
variables.
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe fr
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>
> and will also move symbolic integration as a sub-class
> of SFunction into new symbolics.
>
>
> Currently, Sage allows omitting
29 matches
Mail list logo
