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 gmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have spent considerable amount of time in
Hi Burcin,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org 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
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.
What is the
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossaingmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Steinwst...@gmail.com 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
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Nick Alexanderncalexan...@gmail.com 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
On 4-Aug-09, at 9:09 AM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Nick
Alexanderncalexan...@gmail.com 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
That's great! Congratulations!
maurizio
On 4 Ago, 18:09, Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Nick Alexanderncalexan...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you pattern match on it? It's really irritating to do subs/
pattern matching on the existing
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
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:25:35 +
Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com 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
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org 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.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:54:11 -0700
William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossaingmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Robert
Bradshawrober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM,
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org 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
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 partial
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.
--
William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Golam Mortuza
Hossaingmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org wrote:
Inability to substitute the argument of D[] has ensured that
I am forced out from using new sage symbolics for
Hi all,
let me give some comments.
On Jul 19, 6:08 pm, Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM, William Steinwst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Golam Mortuza
Hossaingmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org wrote:
Inability to substitute the argument of D[] has ensured
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Mauriziomaurizio.gran...@gmail.com 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
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Bill Pagebill.p...@newsynthesis.org 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
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 -f(x-a).diff(a). This
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](f)(x^2)
-
It does
On Jul 20, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Steinwst...@gmail.com
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
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Steinwst...@gmail.com 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
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 construct is
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Tim Laheytim.la...@gmail.com 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
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Steinwst...@gmail.com 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
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Steinwst...@gmail.com 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
28 matches
Mail list logo
