Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I would propose that *single variable* expressions behave like
> callables in one variable, there is no ambiguity as to the ordering,
> so one should be able to call, integrate, differentiate, plot, etc.
> with them without having to specify the variabl
On Nov 7, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
[...]
>>> Going back to your example, f(5,y) would just return a symbolic
>>> expression, so
>>>
>>> sage: f(x,y)=2*x+3*y
>>> sage: plot( f(5,y), (y, -10,10))
>>>
>>> would be equivalent to
>>>
>>> sage: plot( 10+3*y, (y, -10,10))
>>>
>>> which w
Em Sex, 2008-11-07 às 12:25 -0800, Georg S. Weber escreveu:
> Ahh,
>
> better call it "graduate mode" instead of "pedantic mode", at least in
> the documentation.
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
> gsw
I'd prefer blue-pill mode and red-pill mode :)
Ronan
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~--
Ahh,
better call it "graduate mode" instead of "pedantic mode", at least in
the documentation.
:-)
Cheers,
gsw
On 7 Nov., 21:14, "Georg S. Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> summarizing ideas and arguments from this thread gives the following
> proposal:
>
> Sage would benefit fro
Hi all,
summarizing ideas and arguments from this thread gives the following
proposal:
Sage would benefit from the possibility to work in two different
modes, a "classroom mode", and a "pedantic mode".
In the classroom mode, e.g. symbolic expressions would be callable,
and quite some guessing w
> Here are some
> possibilities:
>
>
>
> plot( f(x=5), (y, -10,10))
>
> plot( f(x=5,y=y), (y, -10,10))
>
> plot( f(5,None), (y, -10,10))
>
> plot( f(5,y), (y, -10,10))
>
> g(y) = f(5,y)
> plot(g, (y, -10,10))
> That last one seemed too verbose
>
> Jason
>
Personally I like allowing cal
Here's an idea that could make everyone happy. How about:
--symbolic expressions are not callable, the functional notation is
required,
--on startup, SAGE has defined x to be... the identity ! so it is
callable.
one would need to make sure that f(g) means composition of functions,
so that, say s
> How would x^2 being callable help? Can you give a use case for showing
> that x^2 being callable is much easier/simpler than without it being
> callable?
>
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be callable; I'm just asking for your opinion.
Sorry, it is probably my ignorance showing here. It sounde
kcrisman wrote:
>
> If x^2 isn't callable, though, I might as well not use Sage in the
> undergraduate classroom, or at least not ask any students to use it.
> Well, maybe that's a stretch for me to claim? I'm not sure, honestly,
> but ... it's just that computer mathematics systems are pedanti
> >>> The current syntax allows this:
>
> >>> sage: f(x,y) = a*x + b*y
> >>> sage: f(5)
> >>> b*y + 5*a
> >>> sage: f(5)(5)
> >>> b*y + 25
>
> >>> I think the last line should be a syntax error.
>
> >> I agree, since f was explicitly defined with variables x and y.
>
> >> f(5) should return a fu
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:40:17 -0600
> Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Burcin Erocal wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:26:35 -0800
>>> "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:40:17 -0600
Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Burcin Erocal wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:26:35 -0800
> > "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> plot( f(x=5), (y, -10
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:26:35 -0800
> "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
plot( f(x=5), (y, -10,10))
plot( f(x=5,y=y), (y, -10,10))
plot( f(5,None), (y, -10,10))
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:26:35 -0800
"Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> plot( f(x=5), (y, -10,10))
> >>
> >> plot( f(x=5,y=y), (y, -10,10))
> >>
> >> plot( f(5,None), (y, -10,10))
> >>
> >> plot( f(5,y), (y, -10
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> plot( f(x=5), (y, -10,10))
>>
>> plot( f(x=5,y=y), (y, -10,10))
>>
>> plot( f(5,None), (y, -10,10))
>>
>> plot( f(5,y), (y, -10,10))
>>
>> g(y) = f(5,y)
>> plot(g, (y, -10,10))
>> That last one seemed too verbose
>
>
> I gue
OK so I don't know my alphabet.
2008/11/7 Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> I think it is very handy to be able to partially evaluate an
> expression. Do you propose a syntax that lets you effectively do f(5)
> and get a function back? For example, if I want to plot a level curve
> of f
Jason Grout wrote:
> Burcin Erocal wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:14:26 -0800 (PST)
>> Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Team,
>>>
>>> the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
>>> ---
>>> Commutative:
>>> 1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,...,
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:14:26 -0800 (PST)
> Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Team,
>>
>> the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
>> ---
>> Commutative:
>> 1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,..., then everybody
>> would at le
Hi John,
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:46 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is also the issue of variable ordering. e.g.
>
> sage: var('long_variable_name another_long_name')
> (long_variable_name, another_long_name)
> sage: f = long_variable_name - another_long_name
> sage: f(1,2)
2008/11/7 Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:14:26 -0800 (PST)
> Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Team,
>>
>> the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
>> ---
>> Commutative:
>> 1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,..., t
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Team,
>
> the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
> ---
> Commutative:
> 1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,..., then everybody
> would at least correctly guess that f(1,2
Dear Team,
the impression that I got from this thread is the following:
---
Commutative:
1. If f is a *commutative* polynomial in x,y,z,..., then everybody
would at least correctly guess that f(1,2,3,...) has the intended
meaning "evalutation of f at x=1, y=2, z=3,..."
2. Some people would ac
On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
> On Nov 5, 10:10 pm, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I find this bizarre. I am absolutely certain that I want to view $f$
>> as a polynomial in one variable and evaluate it at 10.
>
> That's nice. I wouldn't want to stand in your w
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Let $f:R\to R$ be defined by $f = x^3+x+1$."
>
> I would consider this a (fairly harmless) typo, since the author
> surely meant "...defined by $f(x) = x^3+x+1$."
What if the author really did mean just what he wrote?
How could he express it
On Nov 5, 10:10 pm, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this bizarre. I am absolutely certain that I want to view $f$
> as a polynomial in one variable and evaluate it at 10.
That's nice. I wouldn't want to stand in your way.
What is worrisome here is that you are all too ready t
Em Qui, 2008-11-06 às 12:02 -0800, Peter escreveu:
> I don't see why every SymbolicExpression should be callable. In usual
> mathematical practice this not
> assumed, and expressions like x(3) are avoided or interpreted as 3x
> (=3*x). Only when it is clear that
> a symbolic name is a function n
I don't see why every SymbolicExpression should be callable. In usual
mathematical practice this not
assumed, and expressions like x(3) are avoided or interpreted as 3x
(=3*x). Only when it is clear that
a symbolic name is a function name (like f,g) does function
application become the default.
IANAM (I am not a mathematician), but from what I see, all the problem
comes from the fact that mathematical notation itself (in paper) may be
ambiguous. Imagine for example that you see in a paper $f(a+b)$. From
common notation one would guess that f is a function and that I'm
replacing it's vari
If we change the name and nature of the objects a little bit, one can
actually write down examples where Robert D's interpretation is not so
outlandish.
For instance:
sage: var("D, x");
sage: f=D^2+D+1;
sage: f(x^3)
x^6 + x^3 + 1
In an article about differential operators, one would probably mea
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 5-Nov-08, at 8:55 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
>
>>
>> William Stein wrote:
>>
>>> Would you consider this weird if you read it in a paper, or
>>> would you know how to interpret it?
>>>
>>> "Let $f = x^3 + x + 1$ and
Hi!
On Nov 6, 6:10 am, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Would you consider this weird if you read it in a paper, or
> >> would you know how to interpret it?
>
> >> "Let $f = x^3 + x + 1$ and consider $f(10)$."
>
> > I'm not so sure I know what to do with that.
Neither am I.
If I
I also find Robert D's take on this bizarre, but it just shows (again)
how different people have different instincts. For me, f = x^3 + x +
1 defines a polynomial, and polynomials define functions in an
unambiguous way, and that is it. But if you think of f as a symbolic
expression (as a traditi
On 5-Nov-08, at 8:55 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>
>> Would you consider this weird if you read it in a paper, or
>> would you know how to interpret it?
>>
>> "Let $f = x^3 + x + 1$ and consider $f(10)$."
>
> I'm not so sure I know what to do with that.
I find this bizarr
33 matches
Mail list logo
