Hi
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:27 PM, David Joynerwdjoy...@gmail.com 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) Unit
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Golam Mortuza
Hossaingmhoss...@gmail.com 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 Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Mauriziomaurizio.gran...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossaingmhoss...@gmail.com 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):
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 r...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
One way would be
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com
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
On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:59 AM, David Joyner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I am seeking your opinion to finalize the conventions
for three generalized functions that I am implementing currently.
My proposals are:
(1)
Hi Golam,
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:53:17 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com 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
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
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:02:05 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com 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)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossaingmhoss...@gmail.com 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)
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
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 maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
Many kudos for this!
Honestly, I don't actually know whether it means that much, but at
this point I think
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 that is
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, 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 tim.la...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:46
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 r...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
One way would be to have a vertical ray that doesn't change the scaling of
the rest of the graph (just
17 matches
Mail list logo
