On Aug 2, 7:59 pm, cousteau <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. ENGINEERING MODE
> Ok, I didn't think about the problems that using real numbers where
> indexes are required would cause. Doesn't look easy to workaround, so
> better forget about this one.
>
I also encourage the appending of a . syntax. But we've definitely
had similar discussions about a 'calculus' mode or something where
(-1)^(1/3)=-1, not a primitive complex root, so it's okay to suggest
it.
> 2. UNITS
> Good to know that Sage already supports units, when were they
> implemented? Apparently not in 4.1.2 at least.
4.1.2 is fairly old in Sage terms (since Sage is still quite young as
a project), nearly a year old? Our hope is that a year from now our
engineering interface will be that much better!
> It would still be useful to have an easy way to access units. If
> adding a syntax like "9.8 'units' " involves messing too much with
> Python's syntax, another solution is to make a function that returns
> units from a string, something like "units('kg m/s2')".
>
> 3. BODE DIAGRAMS
> Well, ok, maybe when I tried to plot a bode diagram I didn't research
> much on the graphics array point, but there's still missing a way to
> make the X axis have a logarithmic scale (without replacing x with
Yes, this is easy in matplotlib (see import pylab in various
examples), but unfortunately languishes as not having been interfaced
in Sage yet.
> (Another alternate syntax would be using a semicolon inside a list:
> "[1,2;3,4]", or "[1,2,3;]" for row matrices; it's more Matlab-like but
> it still has the same problem... although there are already some cases
> such as "list(1..10)" that don't look like valid Python)
This seems more reasonable, since we already have the Maple-esque
1..10 syntax, as you noted, which is VERY helpful to many of us.
>
> 6. TRANSPOSE/CONJUGATE
> It seems that implementing this would just involve modifying the
> __pos__(self) method for complexes, matrices and complex matrices, and
> I think that both conjugating and transposing are common enough
> operations to deserve its own operator.
But probably +matrix(...) should still be the positive matrix, since a
lot of people would be confused if it weren't (it has such a clear
mathematical interpretation). I like Maurizio/William's idea.
Finally, having multiple interfaces to Sage would be a great thing!
The notebook is great for many educational and research purposes, the
command line for others, and why not one for engineering/programming?
Are there any IDE candidates which could have a different system like
Sage 'plugged in' without much effort?
- kcrisman
--
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
