Re: [sage-support] Re: Transcendental Function?

2014-07-16 Thread Nils Bruin
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:11:09 PM UTC-7, Chris Maness wrote: > > I am a bit new to Sage, what method would you recommend for finding > the solutions numerically? > The routine you were using should be quite OK if you give it input for which it's valid. So first do some work to determine in

Re: [sage-support] Re: Transcendental Function?

2014-07-16 Thread Chris Maness
I am a bit new to Sage, what method would you recommend for finding the solutions numerically? Thanks, Chris On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Nils Bruin wrote: > On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:49:06 PM UTC-7, Chris Maness wrote: >> >> But I am getting some strange results. Only one root that doe

[sage-support] Re: Transcendental Function?

2014-07-16 Thread Nils Bruin
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:49:06 PM UTC-7, Chris Maness wrote: > > But I am getting some strange results. Only one root that does not > match the graph. > with: sage: find_root?? you find that this code calls (via some horrible indirections: find_root calls f.find_root, which calls find_

[sage-support] Transcendental Function?

2014-07-16 Thread Chris Maness
I am trying to find the roots of the equation: -cot(x)=sqrt(Z^2/x^2-1) Z=10; p1=plot(-cot(x),(x,0,10,),color='red',ymin=-20, ymax=20 ); p2=plot(sqrt(Z^2/x^2-1),(x,0,10)); show(p1+p2); find_root(cot(x)+sqrt(Z^2/x^2-1),0,10); But I am getting some strange results. Only one root that does not matc

[sage-support] Re: Simplifying combinations of atomic inequalities

2014-07-16 Thread Nils Bruin
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:41:49 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote: > That's because "and" and "or" are program flow constructs in python, as > they are in C (they have "shortcut evaluation" behaviour. They are > equivalent to > > (x<2) if bool(x<2) else (x<1) > > and > > (x<2) if not(bool(x<2)) el

[sage-support] Re: Simplifying combinations of atomic inequalities

2014-07-16 Thread slelievre
Robert Pollak wrote: Hello! > > I see the following wrong results: > > sage: x<2 and x<1 > x < 2 > sage: x<2 or x<1 > x < 1 > > Is this just a syntax problem? How would I enter this correctly? > The best way to manipulate logical combination of inequalities might be to use polyhedra. It's

[sage-support] Re: Simplifying combinations of atomic inequalities

2014-07-16 Thread Nils Bruin
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:25:03 AM UTC-7, robert.pollak wrote: > > Hello! > > I see the following wrong results: > > sage: x<2 and x<1 > x < 2 > sage: x<2 or x<1 > x < 1 > That's because "and" and "or" are program flow constructs in python, as they are in C (they have "shortcut evaluati

[sage-support] Re: building from source: setuptools says "Function not implemented"

2014-07-16 Thread j . d . cranch
Thanks for the replies! I had already had some file system troubles when I tried building on the cluster's nfs store. The problem there had to do with "cp -p" not preserving permissions. So I was building on the cluster's other network file storage, which uses lustre (which I know next to nothi

[sage-support] Simplifying combinations of atomic inequalities

2014-07-16 Thread Robert Pollak
Hello! I see the following wrong results: sage: x<2 and x<1 x < 2 sage: x<2 or x<1 x < 1 Is this just a syntax problem? How would I enter this correctly? Robert -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To unsubscribe from this group a