On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi
>
...
>
> A patch is posted as a part of an old ticket
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2452
>
> Reviews are welcome.
Thanks, I'll look at it. I just posted a comment there.
>
> Cheers,
> Golam
>
> >
>
--~--~-
Hi
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:27 PM, David Joyner wrote:
>> If I gather properly, we are having two different step functions
>> (at least for now) as
>>
>> (2) Heaviside:
>> (a) represented as: "heaviside"
>> (b) latex name : "H"
>> (c) heaviside(0): "heaviside(0)"
>>
>> (3) Uni
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
...
>
> If I gather properly, we are having two different step functions
> (at least for now) as
>
> (2) Heaviside:
> (a) represented as: "heaviside"
> (b) latex name :"H"
> (c) heaviside(0): "heaviside(0)
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Maurizio wrote:
> Honestly, I don't actually know whether it means that much, but at
> this point I think that it could be useful for us to follow
> Mathematica in defining two different functions: Heaviside which is
> undefined in 0 and that is defined as the
On Jun 24, 2009, at 1:57 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> I agree. We could do something like plotting all the deltas with a
> stem plot and then superimposing the rest of the plot
>
> Maurizio
>
It might give the wrong impression.
> On 24 Giu, 04:21, David Roe wrote:
>> One way would be to have a ve
I agree. We could do something like plotting all the deltas with a
stem plot and then superimposing the rest of the plot
Maurizio
On 24 Giu, 04:21, David Roe wrote:
> One way would be to have a vertical ray that doesn't change the scaling of
> the rest of the graph (just goes to the top of the
One way would be to have a vertical ray that doesn't change the scaling of
the rest of the graph (just goes to the top of the viewing window). Not
precisely accurate, but better than nothing.
David
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Maurizio wro
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> As a clarification of what I was talking about, see this:
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ImpulsePair.html
>
> Regards
>
> Maurizio
How are they supposed to be plotted? Along with other impulses,
it would be fine, but next to any normal function
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> Many kudos for this!
>
> Honestly, I don't actually know whether it means that much, but at
> this point I think that it could be useful for us to follow
> Mathematica in defining two different functions: Heaviside which is
> undefined in 0 and th
As a clarification of what I was talking about, see this:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ImpulsePair.html
Regards
Maurizio
On 23 Giu, 23:45, Maurizio wrote:
> Many kudos for this!
>
> Honestly, I don't actually know whether it means that much, but at
> this point I think that it could be useful
Many kudos for this!
Honestly, I don't actually know whether it means that much, but at
this point I think that it could be useful for us to follow
Mathematica in defining two different functions: Heaviside which is
undefined in 0 and that is defined as the function whose derivative is
the Dirac
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
>
> Thanks David, Tim, Burcin!
>
> Correct me if I have missed your points. With your suggestions
> here is the new conventions for Heaviside and unit step
>
> (2) Heaviside:
>
> (a) represented as: "heaviside"
> (b) latex na
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:02:05 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Thanks David, Tim, Burcin!
Thank you for all the effort.
> Correct me if I have missed your points. With your suggestions
> here is the new conventions for Heaviside and unit step
>
> (2) Heaviside:
>
> (a) represented
Thanks David, Tim, Burcin!
Correct me if I have missed your points. With your suggestions
here is the new conventions for Heaviside and unit step
(2) Heaviside:
(a) represented as: "heaviside"
(b) latex name : "\theta"
(c) heaviside(0): will return symbolic expression "he
Hi Golam,
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:53:17 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
> I am seeking your opinion to finalize the conventions
> for three generalized functions that I am implementing currently.
>
> My proposals are:
>
> (1) These generalized functions be included in a new module as
>
>
On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:59 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Golam Mortuza Hossain > wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am seeking your opinion to finalize the conventions
> for three generalized functions that I am implementing currently.
>
> My proposals are:
>
> (1) These gene
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am seeking your opinion to finalize the conventions
> for three generalized functions that I am implementing currently.
>
> My proposals are:
>
> (1) These generalized functions be included in a new module as
>
> "s
17 matches
Mail list logo
