I can't see this figure immediately, but there is definitely an option
for labelling axes in normal plots. See
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/plot/plot.html
- there should be examples with "axes_labels", search for that term.
You can almost use your message as the code!
- kcrisman
O
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> On 22 Aug., 12:05, v...@ukr.net wrote:
>> Hello guys!
>> Could you please explain me (and perhaps some of the other readers)
>> the reasons (or advantages) of using implicit multiplication at all?
>> I mean in what situati
I generate the figure using Sage code.
In the figure I want to label y axis as $\beta\rightarrow$.
Is there any option for this in Sage?
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
F
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Chris Seberino wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 10:28 am, v...@ukr.net wrote:
>> It seems to me that interpreting the "f (x)" as "f*x" could easily
>> confuse the people who are new to Python and Sage. They will read (or
>> maybe have already read) some book on Python and
On Aug 22, 10:28 am, v...@ukr.net wrote:
> It seems to me that interpreting the "f (x)" as "f*x" could easily
> confuse the people who are new to Python and Sage. They will read (or
> maybe have already read) some book on Python and the will try to apply
> their new knowledge in Sage, but instea
I found a nice toolbox full of "routines for inference and learning in
graphical models and machine learning" available at
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/d.barber/brml
The draft of the book that explains all the details is also available
for download as of August 2011.
Maybe it will be of help to s
On Aug 22, 11:28 am, v...@ukr.net wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Chris Seberino wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 8:06 am, Simon King wrote:
> > > But apparently other people find it practical to be able to
> > > write 2x instead of 2*x.
>
> > The preference comes from y
Hello!
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Chris Seberino wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:06 am, Simon King wrote:
> > But apparently other people find it practical to be able to
> > write 2x instead of 2*x.
>
> The preference comes from years of using Mathematica. Also, I think a
> space looks
On Aug 22, 8:06 am, Simon King wrote:
> But apparently other people find it practical to be able to
> write 2x instead of 2*x.
The preference comes from years of using Mathematica. Also, I think a
space looks cleaner and it is easier to type (no shift needed! :).
Chris
--
To post to this grou
On Aug 22, 3:32 am, Simon King wrote:
> On 22 Aug., 04:37, Chris Seberino wrote:
>
> > ...
> > sin (pi) # rare, sin(pi) more likely
> > f (3, 4) # rare, f(3, 4) more likely
>
> Likelihood is a not a good guideline, IMHO. I prefer rigour.
Implicit multiplication is rigorous (or any rem
On Aug 22, 12:52 am, Maarten Derickx
wrote:
> I don't think your proposal will be an enhancement. For two reasons.
>
> 1. x (x) an x*(x) have the same amount of characters.
Some people prefer implicit multiplication. It is already a feature
of Sage.
> 2. currently the python and sage expression
Hi Vladimir,
On 22 Aug., 12:05, v...@ukr.net wrote:
> Hello guys!
> Could you please explain me (and perhaps some of the other readers)
> the reasons (or advantages) of using implicit multiplication at all?
> I mean in what situations it could be useful?
I don't know any advantage of implic
On Aug 21, 5:26 am, achrzesz wrote:
> sage: (integrate( exp(-x^2/2)/sqrt(2*pi) * sign(x-1), x, -oo, 1 )
> +integrate( exp(-x^2/2)/sqrt(2*pi) * sign(x-1), x, 1,
> oo )).simplify_full()
>
> -erf(1/2*sqrt(2))
Interesting that this "just works", and I guess it makes sense.
Still, hopefully we'll ge
On 8/21/11 6:54 PM, William Stein wrote:
Obvious question: are you using exactly the same versions of numpy,
etc., in both of your tests?
Exactly. We are currently behind the latest release of matplotlib. Can
you do this in both systems?
import matplotlib
print matplotlib.__version__
and
Hello guys!
Could you please explain me (and perhaps some of the other readers)
the reasons (or advantages) of using implicit multiplication at all?
I mean in what situations it could be useful?
Thanks
Vladimir
-
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegro
On 22 Aug., 04:37, Chris Seberino wrote:
> ...
> sin (pi) # rare, sin(pi) more likely
> f (3, 4) # rare, f(3, 4) more likely
Likelihood is a not a good guideline, IMHO. I prefer rigour.
> What about a run level that parses "f (3, 4)" as implicit
> multiplication?
"3," is a tuple in Pyt
16 matches
Mail list logo
