On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:02:05PM -0800, Jason Grout wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
> >I argue for keeping the current design when I'm *doing* math.
> >I argue for changing echelon_form to return something over the
> >fraction field when I'm teaching undergraduates.
+1
Luckily enough, in France,
William Stein wrote:
I argue for keeping the current design when I'm *doing* math.
I argue for changing echelon_form to return something over the
fraction field when I'm teaching undergraduates.
Which is exactly why I think the best solution is to just have a .rref()
command, which is what
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:38 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> 2010/1/20 Nicolas M. Thiery :
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:43:00AM -0800, Jason Grout wrote:
>>> >I'd rather have it called `echelon_form`, so I vote for leaving
>>> >echelon_form as is. Jason's current change has the merit of pleasing
>>> >e
2010/1/20 Nicolas M. Thiery :
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:43:00AM -0800, Jason Grout wrote:
>> >I'd rather have it called `echelon_form`, so I vote for leaving
>> >echelon_form as is. Jason's current change has the merit of pleasing
>> >everyone. If there is a strong majority for further changing
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:43:00AM -0800, Jason Grout wrote:
> >I'd rather have it called `echelon_form`, so I vote for leaving
> >echelon_form as is. Jason's current change has the merit of pleasing
> >everyone. If there is a strong majority for further changing
> >`echelon_form`, then please mak
Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Hi!
Thanks Jason for working on that!
On ..., John Cremona:
As a number theorist who is more liklely to want Hermite and Smith
normal forms than an actual echelon form (i nthe usual linear algebra
over fields sense), I would be quite happy for echelon form of a
Hi!
Thanks Jason for working on that!
On ..., John Cremona:
> >As a number theorist who is more liklely to want Hermite and Smith
> >normal forms than an actual echelon form (i nthe usual linear algebra
> >over fields sense), I would be quite happy for echelon form of a
> >matrix over ZZ
John Cremona wrote:
As a number teorist who is more liklely to want Hermite and Smith
normal forms than an actual echelon form (i nthe usual linear algebra
over fields sense), I would be quite happy for echelon form of a
matrix over ZZ to promote to QQ, and have differently names functions
for He
As a number teorist who is more liklely to want Hermite and Smith
normal forms than an actual echelon form (i nthe usual linear algebra
over fields sense), I would be quite happy for echelon form of a
matrix over ZZ to promote to QQ, and have differently names functions
for Hermite and Smith (perha
First - thanks, Jason, for taking this on.
I think the rref approach makes a lot of sense for a change this big,
and will be really useful for educational settings moving away from
calculators (like me this term!). If we then want to replace
instances of echelon_form, it can happen at its own pac
10 matches
Mail list logo
