One question: is there any plan to replace expand(), factor() and
other functions like these? I don't see them mentioned in the todo,
and I always find their usage so much time consuming...
Thanks
Maurizio
On Mar 29, 1:47 pm, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
Hi,
I put up a preliminary
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Maurizio maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
One question: is there any plan to replace expand(), factor() and
other functions like these?
Replace them with what? Do you mean, implement them?
I don't see them mentioned in the todo,
and I always find their
I'm sorry... I wanted to say: is there any plan to make factor()
working with new symbolic as well? I could see one minute ago that
expand is already there (although I'm not aware whether is this
performed through maxima or not, but I don't think so, since it is a
built-in method for a pynac
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Maurizio maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry... I wanted to say: is there any plan to make factor()
working with new symbolic as well? I could see one minute ago that
expand is already there (although I'm not aware whether is this
performed through
I would really like to not have to annoy you with this stuff, but I
really think I'm missing something important (and useful!!)
The first thing I have to say is: how do I check which is the type of
the coefficients (whether they are rationals or something else)? Even
when I do multivariate
I really think it would be silly to require
sage: integrate(x^3,x)
I don't find this so silly, especially in an educational setting. I
am forever telling my students that the dx part of an integral
(definite or indefinite) is not optional. In a definite integral it
reminds them of
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Maurizio maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
I would really like to not have to annoy you with this stuff, but I
really think I'm missing something important (and useful!!)
The first thing I have to say is: how do I check which is the type of
the coefficients
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:43 AM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
+1. And in fact it probably should define y as a variable even if you
just do differentiate(y^3).
For the record, that will never happen by default in Sage. That goes
along with choosing Python as the user language of
It sounds like you're talking about the user interface rather than the
language itself...
Hmm, I guess for someone like me they are quite inter-related, since I
have little programming experience. That seems reasonable. But of
course language is part of the interface, since one has to use it
On Mar 30, 5:36 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Maurizio maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
I would really like to not have to annoy you with this stuff, but I
really think I'm missing something important (and useful!!)
The first thing I have
Hi Burcin,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
Some time next week, I will put a clean version of the switchover
patch, along with a new pynac package and some fixes to the sage
library so others can reproduce the results above.
Great! eager to test them.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Golam Mortuza Hossain
gmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Burcin,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
Some time next week, I will put a clean version of the switchover
patch, along with a new pynac package and some fixes to the
On Mar 29, 4:47 am, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
I propose to make the integration variable explicit, by deprecating
this use, and encouraging the use of this:
Another +1 for making the variable explicit. Presumably, this will
also relieve one of the burden of issuing a var()
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:47 am, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
I propose to make the integration variable explicit, by deprecating
this use, and encouraging the use of this:
Another +1 for making the variable explicit.
On Mar 29, 12:29 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it will never ever relieve one of the burden of issuing a var
beforehand, since the Python parser can't understand the input
expression if the var hasn't been declared.
So, I don't know much about how the preparser and variables
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net wrote:
On Mar 29, 12:29 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it will never ever relieve one of the burden of issuing a var
beforehand, since the Python parser can't understand the input
expression if the var hasn't
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net wrote:
So is the following *hypothetical* behavior not possible (or not
desirable)?
sage: preparse( 'differentiate(y^3, y)' )
'_ = var(y); differentiate(y**Integer(3), y)'
If such a thing were indeed possible, I think it
So is the following *hypothetical* behavior not possible (or not
desirable)?
sage: preparse( 'differentiate(y^3, y)' )
'_ = var(y); differentiate(y**Integer(3), y)'
If such a thing were indeed possible, I think it would make simple
uses of Sage for calculus a whole lot easier for
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
So is the following *hypothetical* behavior not possible (or not
desirable)?
sage: preparse( 'differentiate(y^3, y)' )
'_ = var(y); differentiate(y**Integer(3), y)'
If such a thing were indeed possible, I think it would
On Mar 29, 4:51 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
(2) If I write
sage: d = differentiate
would your preparser thing be invoked when I type
sage: d(y^3, y)
If yes, then where do you draw the line? If no, then won't this lead
to lots of additional confusion?
OK, that makes
On Mar 29, 5:15 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
I really think it would be silly to require
sage: integrate(x^3,x)
I don't find this so silly, especially in an educational setting. I
am forever telling my students that the dx part of an integral
(definite or indefinite) is not
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net wrote:
On Mar 29, 5:15 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
I really think it would be silly to require
sage: integrate(x^3,x)
I don't find this so silly, especially in an educational setting. I
am forever telling my
But personally, I find the variants for specifying variables, and
their associated ranges, somewhat confusing. I can never quite
remember if the x is needed or not, and then does it take the form:
x,a,b or (x,a,b)?
I now think (x,a,b) should always be *supported*, though it shouldn't
be
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
But personally, I find the variants for specifying variables, and
their associated ranges, somewhat confusing. I can never quite
remember if the x is needed or not, and then does it take the form:
x,a,b or (x,a,b)?
I
As to the derivative, why not to just use .diff()?
I don't understand the question.
My fault, the new symbolics already uses sin(x).diff(x) to denote
differentiation. I read some of the posts above and I thought for a
while that it uses sin(x).derivative().
I don't have an opinion, if it's
25 matches
Mail list logo
