Re: [sage-devel] Re: integration algorithms

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:01 PM, rjf wrote: > People have been working on computer programs for integration since about > 1961. There are > at least 8 PhD theses on the topic. > > If you think there is "low hanging fruit" like writing a better > simplification program, or >

[sage-devel] Sage Days 87: p-adics and the LMFDB

Please feel free to forward to people who may be interested. Sage Days 87 Burlington, Vermont July 17-22, 2017 This workshop will be primarily project based, focused on improving p-adics in Sage and the L-functions and modular forms database (www.lmfdb.org). We aim to have a substantial number

[sage-devel] Re: integration algorithms

People have been working on computer programs for integration since about 1961. There are at least 8 PhD theses on the topic. If you think there is "low hanging fruit" like writing a better simplification program, or using binary search instead of pattern matching, or something else you

[sage-devel] Re: Default display for equations in notebook

"implemented on the Sage side" as opposed to in notebooks? I would very much be in favour of this so that the difference between code behaviour in different environments is as small as possible! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:03:05 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > surely you can do this, but it seems to be harder to certify if a number > is zero or not. > Exactly. That's the idea of Allan's approach: rather than tracking these questions in characteristic 0, you do it in a finite

[sage-devel] Default display for equations in notebook

Eric Gourgoulhon and I were discussing the possibility of making the default display for the (Jupyter) notebooks be latex, and we decided that this might not be a good way forward because not everything has latex that gives valid mathjax (e.g., Partition([4,3,3,1]) uses \multicol, which is not

Re: [sage-devel] An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

Dear Jaume, The main reason comes from the following very different algorithmic problem: 1) a one time shot question about an equality of algebraic numbers 2) a lot of arithmetic operations involving algebraic numbers Basically your question belongs to 1) and AA is designed for 2). If you

[sage-devel] Re: Name symbolic expressions

Nils, this is a most excellent answer. Coming to Sage from Mathematica, I continue to be puzzled by the various ways functions are handled in Sage, so thanks! This is a topic that has not yet been well documented. The only thing I have found close to it is a description of problems that can

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 9:06:26 PM UTC, William wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote: > >> The original poster is asking only about basic arithmetic and equality > >> testing in AA. Since AA embeds as a subfield of QQbar, a solution to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> The original poster is asking only about basic arithmetic and equality >> testing in AA. Since AA embeds as a subfield of QQbar, a solution to >> these problems in QQbar automatically implies one in AA. >> > Does taking

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 8:04:04 PM UTC, William wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:06:28 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote: > >> > >> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:06:28 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote: >> >> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> >>> I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:06:28 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote: > > On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600 >> >> The variable d lies in a number field of degree 32, which is rather big >> to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600 > > The variable d lies in a number field of degree 32, which is rather big > to call polredbest() on. > If the sage implementation ends up doing this

[sage-devel] Re: Rant about plotting documentation

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:41:48 PM UTC-4, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote: > > I wanted to check how to make new threejs plotting code to use CDN. show? > and plot? don't mention viewer options and their parameters. So, I go to > the reference manual > http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600 The variable d lies in a number field of degree 32, which is rather big to call polredbest() on. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this

[sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

Backtrace leads into cypari2 polredbest, possibly a pari bug: sage: a=AA(sqrt(sqrt(5))) : r=AA(sqrt((AA(sqrt(13))-a)^2+3)) : c=a+r : : d= AA(sqrt(r^2-a^2)) : : 2*a*c == c^2 - d^2 : ^C---

Re: [sage-devel] An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Jaume Aguade wrote: > Let r > a > 0 be real numbers. Let c = a + r, d = sqrt(r^2-a^2). Then, it is > obvious that 2*a*c=c^2-d^2. However, sage crashes when trying to check this > with a and r rather "simple" algebraic numbers. > > I've found

[sage-devel] An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

Let r > a > 0 be real numbers. Let c = a + r, d = sqrt(r^2-a^2). Then, it is obvious that 2*a*c=c^2-d^2. However, sage crashes when trying to check this with a and r rather "simple" algebraic numbers. I've found this while using sage to solve elementary geometric problems involving circles

Re: [sage-devel] Deactivate sage-env for conda

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Francois Bissey wrote: > Sounds like what “module”/lmod are supposed to do automatically > for you. Sourcing sage-env effectively give you a sage shell > as you would if you run “sage -sh”. Again there is not really > a

[sage-devel] Re: integration algorithms

> > ...In principle there can be fast progress if the first version only > implements general fallback rules like the mentioned 2F1 solutions. Many > Rubi rules only specialize 2F1 solutions, a sort of > simplify_hypergeometric() if you want. But then, with only the > hypergeometric (H) rules

[sage-devel] Re: integration algorithms

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:38:01 AM UTC+1, saad khalid wrote: > > ... Also, Sage often gives solutions that are not as simple as possible, > in the sense that they look ugly often. I think this would help with that. > Note that an alternative for this could be to implement special

[sage-devel] Re: integration algorithms

My guess is that Mathematica added more special functions and integration methods using them mainly for advertising, not because some researchers needed them, otherwise some of them would probably work on this in an open-source CAS. About step by step, I cover some cases, for example