Currently one must write
sage: matrix([[1, 2], [3, 4]])
[1 2]
[3 4]
sage: matrix([[1, 2], [3, 4]]) * matrix([[5, 6], [7, 8]])
[19 22]
[43 50]
Well, one can avoid writing to much square brackets by doing :
sage: matrix(2, [1,2,3,4])
[1 2]
[3 4]
sage: matrix(2, [1, 2, 3, 4]]) * matrix(2,
No, that's not good.
Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
(as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
Dima
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
2012/1/26 Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com:
No, that's not good.
Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
(as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
How about [1,2,3;] for matrix([[1,2,3]])?
This problem and solution are similar to (1,) for a 1-tuple
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:37:14 PM UTC+8, Marco Streng wrote:
2012/1/26 Dima Pasechnik dim...@gmail.com:
No, that's not good.
Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
(as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
How about [1,2,3;] for
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
then, for consistency, it should be then
[1,2;3,4;], i.e. end each row with ;
It can be optional:
In [6]: (1,2,3)
Out[6]: (1, 2, 3)
In [7]: (1,2,3,)
Out[7]: (1, 2, 3)
--Mike
--
To post to this group, send an email to
Python does (1,) but allows and encourages (1, 2) rather than (1, 2,), so
IMO we should do [1, 2;] but allow and encourage [1, 2; 3, 4] rather than
[1, 2; 3, 4;].
Great idea btw, I like this. This would make it as easy to enter matrices
quickly into Sage as it is in Mathematica, MATLAB, etc. I
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Marco Streng marco.str...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/1/26 Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com:
No, that's not good.
Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
(as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
How about [1,2,3;] for
As for global defaults, it's nice for both examples and debugging for
there to be as little global state as possible, and someone who wants
RDF for reals probably wants CDF for complexes. The consistency
argument is a good one, but changing matrix(...) would be much more
invasive, and both
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 02:06 -0800, David Roe wrote:
As for global defaults, it's nice for both examples and debugging for
there to be as little global state as possible, and someone who wants
RDF for reals probably wants CDF for complexes. The consistency
argument is a good one, but
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:16 AM, daly d...@axiom-developer.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 02:06 -0800, David Roe wrote:
As for global defaults, it's nice for both examples and debugging for
there to be as little global state as possible, and someone who wants
RDF for reals probably wants
Matlab users are spoiled, as everything is a matrix of floats there.
Do you know that 0==0.0 and 0==[0] in Matlab?
Going this way, we will end up renaming binomial() to nchoosek(), and
creating a Matlab clone :-)
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 02:24 -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:16 AM, daly d...@axiom-developer.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 02:06 -0800, David Roe wrote:
As for global defaults, it's nice for both examples and debugging for
there to be as little global state as
So I am suggesting that a clean syntax is possible if
the base ring is associated with the target symbol, not
with the input tokens.
Apprently in Axiom you can statically type variable names, whereas in
Python a variable is dynamically typed: you can't specify that a
should hold an Integer for
Hi all!
On 26 Jan., 10:37, Marco Streng marco.str...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/1/26 Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com:
No, that's not good.
Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
(as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
How about [1,2,3;] for
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:05 -0800, David Roe wrote:
So I am suggesting that a clean syntax is possible if
the base ring is associated with the target symbol, not
with the input tokens.
Apprently in Axiom you can statically type variable names, whereas in
Python a variable is dynamically
What would Matlab users think of having to learn the habit of putting
. behind their integers in Sage, e.g.?
sage: matrix([[1.,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Real Field with 53 bits of precision
sage: matrix([[1/1,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Rational Field
This would be a possible warning to engineers: Make
On 1/26/12 5:30 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
What would Matlab users think of having to learn the habit of putting
. behind their integers in Sage, e.g.?
sage: matrix([[1.,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Real Field with 53 bits of precision
sage: matrix([[1/1,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Rational Field
This
2012/1/26 Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com:
That's part of the problem pointed out in an earlier message---our RR
matrices really are pretty bad for numerical things, but RDF matrices are
the way to go (the RDF matrices use standard numerical algorithms for the
most part, whereas RR
On 1/26/12 7:54 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
2012/1/26 Jason Groutjason-s...@creativetrax.com:
That's part of the problem pointed out in an earlier message---our RR
matrices really are pretty bad for numerical things, but RDF matrices are
the way to go (the RDF matrices use standard numerical
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 1/26/12 7:54 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
2012/1/26 Jason Groutjason-s...@creativetrax.com:
That's part of the problem pointed out in an earlier message---our RR
matrices really are pretty bad for numerical things,
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:51 AM, daly d...@axiom-developer.org wrote:
[...lots of axiom examples and Sage questions...]
Sage, like Axiom, distinguishes between Integers and Rationals with a
trivial denominator, has a strong notion of a basering (for matrices,
polynomials), etc. You may want to
To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matlab clone,
rather it is to add a missing feature to Sage.
Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for
Hi Robert,
On 26 Jan., 19:13, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for matrix construction in Sage?
[ ] Yes, I love this syntax! It would be make life better for me and
my students.
[X ] I wouldn't oppose, but may require some convincing.
Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for matrix construction in Sage?
[ X ] Yes, I love this syntax! It would be make life better for me and
my students.
[ ] I wouldn't oppose, but may require some convincing.
[ ] No, that's a horrible idea.
Why?
Short, intuitive, clear, coincides with gp
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matlab clone,
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matlab clone,
On 1/26/12 1:57 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
It would be nice to be able to specify a type. Perhaps
R.[1,2,3;2,3,4] - Matrix(R,[[1,2,3],[2,3,4]])
or perhaps even
R[1,2,3;2,3,4]
Another option would be:
[QQ: 1,2,3; 4,5,6]
or, as Robert suggests:
[1,2,3; 4,5,6, base_ring=QQ] -- but then it
Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for matrix construction in Sage?
[x ] Yes, I love this syntax! It would be make life better for me and
my students.
Why?
This makes it easier to win over people used to Matlab.
Should the default basering be more linear-algebra friendly? E.g. R -
On 1/26/12 2:04 PM, William Stein wrote:
[X] No, matrices over QQ are for sissies, real mathematicians work
over ZZ unless otherwise specified.
That would go great in our linear algebra article or in the Sage docs ;)
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to
On 1/26/12 12:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matlab clone,
rather it is to add a missing feature to
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 1/26/12 1:57 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
It would be nice to be able to specify a type. Perhaps
R.[1,2,3;2,3,4] - Matrix(R,[[1,2,3],[2,3,4]])
or perhaps even
R[1,2,3;2,3,4]
Another option would be:
[QQ:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
Another option would be:
[QQ: 1,2,3; 4,5,6]
QQ:1 is a slice...
or, as Robert suggests:
[1,2,3; 4,5,6, base_ring=QQ] -- but then it looks like base_ring=QQ is
another element.
assignments aren't literals...
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 1/26/12 12:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
Matlab syntax, the intent is
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
I waffle between Yes, and Yes with convincing. I'm trying it out now to see
how I feel about it. I feel like we shouldn't extend python too much, but
this syntax is very tempting.
BTW, at the upcoming pydata
On Jan 26, 3:19 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 1/26/12 12:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:19 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 1/26/12 12:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
rephrase this as a survey. To be clear,
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not* use it?
The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
have to be careful to not use it when writing .py code for the Sage
core library. But at least this matrix notation will always result
in a SyntaxError if used
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not* use it?
The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
have to be careful to not use it when writing .py code for the Sage
core library.
On 01/26/12 17:00, William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com
wrote:
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not* use it?
The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
have to be careful to not use it when writing
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not* use it?
The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
have to be careful to not use it when writing .py code for the Sage
core library.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com
wrote:
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not* use it?
The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com
wrote:
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not*
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Robert Bradshaw
Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
I can't seem to construct
matrices with matrix entries (this is not absurd) -- but should the
preparser grok it? [[1..10; 10..20] ; [2..12; 14..24]]
Yes, for sure. And [[1..10;
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, David Roe r...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
I can't seem to construct
matrices with matrix entries (this is not absurd) -- but should the
preparser grok it?
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, David Roe r...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
I can't seem to construct
matrices with matrix entries (this is not absurd) -- but should the
preparser grok it?
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, David Roe r...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
I can't seem to construct
matrices with
On 1/26/12 8:21 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, David Roer...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
I can't seem to construct
matrices with matrix entries (this is not absurd) --
First, like Simon said: But I wouldn't be so mean to prevent other
people from using it. But I have trouble getting too excited about
this new syntax. What we have works well for me and for my students.
Second, I agree strongly when William said: I'm more for
*consistency* between the matrix
50 matches
Mail list logo
