Jori Mantysalo wrote:
print 0^0
var('n')
simplify(0^n)
prints
1
0
Is this a bug or feature?
To start with, e.g. take a look at
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10772
(and probably one of its follow-ups,
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/13786 ).
(There are plenty of related tickets, and II
marcW wrote:
> hi,
> I'm really surprised about the consideration for a remark like a
> newbie like me.
Well, we definitely like to listen to people who give suggestions!
> Of course computational precision is important, the little game i was
> showing leads to a soluion
> around 0.1 for ra
hi,
I'm really surprised about the consideration for a remark like a
newbie like me.
Of course computational precision is important, the little game i was
showing leads to a soluion
around 0.1 for ra and rb.
So that brings us to part 2: convert to string; works for an isolated
number, but not
Simon King wrote:
> Hi Marc!
>
> On 12 Dez., 15:48, Jason Grout wrote:
>> marcW wrote:
> [...]
>> If you don't care about precision (i.e., all numbers are rounded off to
>> 2-3 digits), then you can declare your numbers this way:
>>
>> sage: R=RealField(15)
>> sage: R(pi)
> [...]
>
> Or, if you
Hi Marc!
On 12 Dez., 15:48, Jason Grout wrote:
> marcW wrote:
[...]
> If you don't care about precision (i.e., all numbers are rounded off to
> 2-3 digits), then you can declare your numbers this way:
>
> sage: R=RealField(15)
> sage: R(pi)
[...]
Or, if you *do* care about the precision in the c
marcW wrote:
> hi, i wouldn't know, all I know is that C, Mathematica, php whatever I
> used in my life, i never ran into this.
> sure, it's about formatted output (the distinction between generic
> output and latex(expr) escapes me: I just look at the notebook).
> A filter which processes the resu
hi, i wouldn't know, all I know is that C, Mathematica, php whatever I
used in my life, i never ran into this.
sure, it's about formatted output (the distinction between generic
output and latex(expr) escapes me: I just look at the notebook).
A filter which processes the result to be printed and tr
marcW wrote:
> thank you,
> precision is one thing, but the output gets messy, and the common
> assumption that trailing zeros are redundant works fine for me.
> I was trying this for a start (but then I stopped in my tracks)
You're right that the output gets messy, especially if you don't care
ma...@mendelu.cz wrote:
> fixed in http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7356
>
but it is only for latex(expr), right? I thought the poster was asking
about generic printing.
Jason
--
Jason Grout
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe fr
very sorry, I ran into this, but I have no clue what to do to with it,
as I said I am new to all this.
thank you
On 11 dec, 19:36, "ma...@mendelu.cz" wrote:
> fixed inhttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7356
>
> On 11 pro, 19:18, marcW wrote:
>
> > hi,
> > I'm new at this, some experience
thank you,
precision is one thing, but the output gets messy, and the common
assumption that trailing zeros are redundant works fine for me.
I was trying this for a start (but then I stopped in my tracks)
Coef =var('a, b, alpha_A, alpha_B, beta_A, beta_B, k_A, k_B, J, R_A,
R_B')
values ={a: 15,b:
fixed in http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7356
On 11 pro, 19:18, marcW wrote:
> hi,
> I'm new at this, some experience with mathematica.
> I spent the better part of 2 days trying to find out why
> f= a*x
> g=f.subs({a:0.6}]
> show(g)
>
> produces so many zeroes.lol. It's laughable.
> I'
marcW wrote:
> hi,
> I'm new at this, some experience with mathematica.
> I spent the better part of 2 days trying to find out why
> f= a*x
> g=f.subs({a:0.6}]
> show(g)
>
> produces so many zeroes.lol. It's laughable.
> I've never seen something like this.
> It shouldn't be complicated to get rid
13 matches
Mail list logo
