On Feb 16, 2008 5:46 PM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 11:38 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> > Micheal suggested replacing all "#random's" by "..." and
> > William seconded this. Then William suggested adding the scip option to
> > the funct
On Feb 16, 11:38 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
> Micheal suggested replacing all "#random's" by "..." and
> William seconded this. Then William suggested adding the scip option to
> the functions implemented. This has been done as well.
> The patch passes "sage -t" ha
Micheal suggested replacing all "#random's" by "..." and
William seconded this. Then William suggested adding the scip option to
the functions implemented. This has been done as well.
The patch passes "sage -t" has some examples added and some
docstring typos fixed. It can be found at:
http://sage
On Dec 12, 2007 3:18 PM, pgdoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I'll actually be posting a vague pie in the sky grant proposal to
> > sage-* for feedback in about 3 or 4 days
> > about improving special functions in Sage
> >
>
> This sounds like a very good idea. One of the main things I
> I'll actually be posting a vague pie in the sky grant proposal to
> sage-* for feedback in about 3 or 4 days
> about improving special functions in Sage
>
This sounds like a very good idea. One of the main things I worry
about missing from Mathematica is all the special functions.
This is
On Dec 12, 2007 2:44 PM, pgdoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> To get back to the question of argument order, it seems strange to me
> that
> pari(2).besselk(3)
> should meant K_2(3) rather than K_3(2).
>
> sage: pari(2).besselk(3)
> 0.06151045847174203765682007145
> sage: bessel_K(2,3)
> 0.06151
To get back to the question of argument order, it seems strange to me
that
pari(2).besselk(3)
should meant K_2(3) rather than K_3(2).
sage: pari(2).besselk(3)
0.06151045847174203765682007145
sage: bessel_K(2,3)
0.0615104584717420
bessel_K(nu,x) is written K_nu(x) because the first argument nu is
> > even better would be to adopt a computational model such that all
> > numerical computations can give only *one* correct result. Then you
> > could simply compare to the expected result with utilities like "diff".
>
> That would be nice but isn't realistic, since Sage includes systems like
>
On Dec 12, 2007 5:30 AM, Paul Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > >sage: pari('2').besselk(3) # random
> > > "Random" here doesn't mean what you think. [...]
> > We really need to kill all of those and add "..." to account for the
> > imprecision caused by different CPUs/operating sys
> > > >sage: pari('2').besselk(3) # random
> > "Random" here doesn't mean what you think. [...]
> We really need to kill all of those and add "..." to account for the
> imprecision caused by different CPUs/operating systems/compilers.
even better would be to adopt a computational model such that
On Dec 12, 11:50 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007 3:20 AM, pgdoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The description of Bessel_K functions in the Sage Cookbook is
> > confusing about the order of the arguments.
> >http://sagemath.org/doc/html/const/node96.ht
On Dec 12, 2007 3:20 AM, pgdoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The description of Bessel_K functions in the Sage Cookbook is
> confusing about the order of the arguments.
> http://sagemath.org/doc/html/const/node96.html
> Here's what it says:
>
> >Here's an example using SAGE's interface to pari'
12 matches
Mail list logo
