On Aug 5, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
>> (5) Looses information irrecoverably:
>>
>> From "D[0](f)(x-a)" its not possible to decide whether original
>> variable of differentiation was "x" as in f(x-a).diff(x) or "a"
>> as in -f(x-a).diff(a). This again affects integration algorithm
Hi Burcin,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>> (1) Breaks substitution:
>
> We could either use the existing CallableSymbolicExpressionRing
> implementation and force the user to give names to the arguments, to
> get something like:
I would appreciate if you implement a
Hi Golam,
I'm replying to this e-mail so I can answer each of your points below
easily. I was very busy when you sent this message to write a proper
reply.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:08:28 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have spent considerable amount of time in last one month
>
That's great! Congratulations!
maurizio
On 4 Ago, 18:09, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
> > Can you pattern match on it? It's really irritating to do subs/
> > pattern matching on the existing derivatives.
>
> Yep! In fact, that was the m
On 4-Aug-09, at 9:09 AM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Nick
> Alexander wrote:
>>
>> Can you pattern match on it? It's really irritating to do subs/
>> pattern matching on the existing derivatives.
>
> Yep! In fact, that was the main reason for doing so :-).
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
> Can you pattern match on it? It's really irritating to do subs/
> pattern matching on the existing derivatives.
Yep! In fact, that was the main reason for doing so :-). The new
"diff" derivative is really a symbolic "function". So regular
> I am back again on this issue :-) I just completed a native c++
> implementation of "diff" format derivative in pynac.
Can you pattern match on it? It's really irritating to do subs/
pattern matching on the existing derivatives.
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> At first glance doing this sounds like a really good idea. How hard
>> would it be for you to make a mock-up prototype of this to more
>> clearly demonstrate it? I'm def
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> I am not opposed to having the unevaluated diff as an alternative
> operator.
Thanks Burcin. Surely, it helps to have both derivatives available to
Sage users. As Tim said, similar options are available to Maple users.
It is easy to
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:25:35 +
Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi Burcin,
>
> I am sorry if I have hurt you by my earlier statements in this thread.
As William said, no worries.
I am sorry if my message sounded personal. I was just trying to point
out that I don't agree with your propos
Hi Burcin,
I am sorry if I have hurt you by my earlier statements in this thread.
Best,
Golam
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>
>>> -
>>> h = f(x^2).diff(x)*(x+1/x)
>>>
>>> sage: h.subs(f(x^2)==1)
>>> 2*(x + 1/x)*x*D[0](f)(x^2)
>>>
>>> sage: h.subs(f(x^2).diff(x)==0)
>>> 2*(x + 1/x)*x*D[0](
On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>
>> On Jul 19, 6:08 pm, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>>
>>> (5) Looses information irrecoverably:
>>>
>>> From "D[0](f)(x-a)" its not possible to decide whether original
>>> variable of differentiation was "x" as in f(x-a).diff(x) or "a"
>>> as in
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>> -
>> h = f(x^2).diff(x)*(x+1/x)
>>
>> sage: h.subs(f(x^2)==1)
>> 2*(x + 1/x)*x*D[0](f)(x^2)
>>
>> sage: h.subs(f(x^2).diff(x)==0)
>> 2*(x + 1/x)*x*D[0](f)(x^2)
>> -
>
> It does not make sense to ask to "substitute" 'f(x^2)
> On Jul 19, 6:08 pm, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
>> (5) Looses information irrecoverably:
>>
>> From "D[0](f)(x-a)" its not possible to decide whether original
>> variable of differentiation was "x" as in f(x-a).diff(x) or "a"
>> as in -f(x-a).diff(a). This again affects integration algorithm
On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:33 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> I agree. Both Sage derivative and anti-derivative should be made
> compatible
> to each other by design from the very beginning. Having them in two
> separate sub-system can make thing only worse.
>
> Regarding Maxima, I strongly be
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>> (5) Looses information irrecoverably:
>>
>> From "D[0](f)(x-a)" its not possible to decide whether original
>> variable of differentiation was "x" as in f(x-a).diff(x) or "a"
>> as in -f(x-a).diff(a). This again affects integration algorith
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Golam Mortuza
> Hossain wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>>
> Inability to substitute the argument of D[] has ensured that
> I am forced out from using
Hi all,
let me give some comments.
On Jul 19, 6:08 pm, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have spent considerable amount of time in last one month
> working with new symbolics. Overall, I am impressed with
> it.
One of the best selling point of Pynac has always been its speed, so
we shoul
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Golam Mortuza
> Hossain wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>>
> Inability to substitute the argument of D[] has ensured that
> I am forced out from using new sage symbolics for my own work.
>>>
On Jul 22, 2009, at 2:21 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> No worries. This will get sorted out. Burcin is sharing his opinion,
> but it isn't the law or anything, and Sage development is not done by
> "dictators".
>
> I would like to hear more from other users if anybody else has an
> opinion.
>
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
>>> > Inability to substitute the argument of D[] has ensured that
>>> > I am forced out from using new sage symbolics for my own work.
>>
>> As I said above, you coul
On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:47 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
> I still don't see the motivation for switching back to Maxima
> behavior.
> Somehow Maple and MMA both work the same way as GiNaC/pynac, and their
> users don't have difficulty using them.
>
> I'm sure if some users complained about how par
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>> > Inability to substitute the argument of D[] has ensured that
>> > I am forced out from using new sage symbolics for my own work.
>
> As I said above, you could have added a short term workaround for this,
> once you start using cyth
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:54:11 -0700
William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Golam Mortuza
> Hossain wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Robert
> > Bradshaw wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Stein
> >>> wrote:
> >> Or should we jus
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Robert
> Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Stein
>>> wrote:
>> Or should we just restore old "diff" by simply sub-classing it
>> from SFunction like what is
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Robert
Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Stein
>> wrote:
> Or should we just restore old "diff" by simply sub-classing it
> from SFunction like what is being done for "integration"
> and others?
>>>
>>> At first glance do
On Jul 20, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Stein
> wrote:
Or should we just restore old "diff" by simply sub-classing it
from SFunction like what is being done for "integration"
and others?
>>
>> At first glance
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>> Or should we just restore old "diff" by simply sub-classing it
>>> from SFunction like what is being done for "integration"
>>> and others?
>
> At first glance doing this sounds like a really good idea. How hard
> would it be for you
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> At first glance doing this sounds like a really good idea. How hard
> would it be for you to make a mock-up prototype of this to more
> clearly demonstrate it? I'm definitely not opposed.
I need bit of help. How does one convert G
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>>>
>>> My question now is it really worth solving all of the
>>> above issue to keep working with fderivative of pynac?
>>>
>>> Or should we just restore old "diff" by simply s
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have spent considerable amount of time in last one month
>> working with new symbolics. Overall, I am impressed with
>> it.
>>
>> However, my experience with
On Jul 19, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have spent considerable amount of time in last one month
> working with new symbolics. Overall, I am impressed with
> it.
>
> However, my experience with new derivative makes me
> wonder whether the pynac "fderivative" co
33 matches
Mail list logo
