Correct me if I missed something, but it seems that official linear
solving package(s) (that is LinearSystemMatrixPackage and
LinearSystemMatrixPackage1) only work over fields. We also
have linear solver for PID-s, somewhat hidden as 'diophantineSystem'
in SmithNormalForm.
If one wants general
This is a good idea, many such inconsistencies are around and we should really
work on that. Another example is inverting elements.
In Monoid we have recip, in Group we have inv. For SquareMatrix we have an
additional
if R has Field then inverse: % - Union(%,failed)
which is really
Another idea:
when the interpreter uses coercions, why shouldn't we have same facility to use
retractions as far back to the original domain, as possible.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Johannes Grabmeier
Prof. Dr. Johannes Grabmeier
Köckstraße 1, D-94469 Deggendorf
Tel. +49-(0)-991-2979584, Tel.
On 05/05/2013 11:43 AM, Prof. Dr. Johannes Grabmeier wrote:
This is a good idea, many such inconsistencies are around and we
should really work on that. Another example is inverting elements.
In Monoid we have recip, in Group we have inv. For SquareMatrix we
have an additional
if R has
But before I work more seriously on the library, I wait until the
extend keyword exists in SPAD. ;-)
Does anybody work on that?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Johannes Grabmeier
Prof. Dr. Johannes Grabmeier
Köckstraße 1, D-94469 Deggendorf
Tel. +49-(0)-991-2979584, Tel.
But before I work more seriously on the library, I wait until the
extend keyword exists in SPAD. ;-)
Does anybody work on that?
I guess it's not one of Waldek's priorities. But otherwise the Aldor
compiler already has it. As far as I was told there are no legal issues
anymore releasing the
On 2013-05-05 7:07 AM, Ralf Hemmecke r...@hemmecke.org wrote:
I was told there are no legal issues anymore releasing the Aldor compiler.
Does that mean that Aldor is no longer restricted by the original
license? If so, what are we waiting for?
--
You received this message because you are
Prof. Dr. Johannes Grabmeier wrote:
This is a good idea, many such inconsistencies are around and we should rea=
lly work on that. Another example is inverting elements.
In Monoid we have recip, in Group we have inv. For SquareMatrix we have an=
additional
if R has Field then inverse:
Another idea:
when the interpreter uses coercions, why shouldn't we have same facility to=
use retractions as far back to the original domain, as possible.
I think we should try. Similar idea appeared to me when I looked
at resuls of comparisons:
(7) - 2 = 3
(7) 2= 3
I have noticed that we have inconsistent convention with
our solvers. In LinearSystemMatrixPackage we have
'particularSolution' and 'solve' which gives both
particular solution and basis of the null space.
However, in LinearDependence we have 'solveLinear'
which corresponds to
10 matches
Mail list logo
