On Nov 4, 5:17 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 11/4/10 6:56 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Jason Groutjason-s...@creativetrax.com
wrote:
On 11/4/10 6:12 PM, rjf wrote:
1. can you prove a program correct without looking at its source
On Nov 2, 4:07 am, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
It would be rather embarrising for Steven Wolfram if Sage could do the
stuff in Mathematica 1000x faster.
Not really. In this regard he would show ease of programming and
neatness
of display, not speed.
Their importance in
Cellular automata of the sort that Wolfram talks about can be
implemented
in languages other than Mathematica much more efficiently. Maybe
10,000
times faster when I wrote some stuff in lisp. Not for doing anything
useful,
just a speed competition.
Their importance in Mathematica per se is
regarding jobs, programming, etc, Kirby does not reveal all that I
conveyed to him.
1. Monster.com has fewer jobs than indeed.com
Indeed.com now has 223 jobs listed, estimated salaries...
* $40,000+ (201)
* $60,000+ (152)
* $80,000+ (94)
* $100,000+ (39)
* $120,000+ (13)
The semantics of substitution as done in Maxima and probably Ginac (no
wildcards)
is quite clear IF you understand the representation of expressions as
trees.
Not strings.
That means that some people will NOT understand substitution.
A fairly safe bet is only to substitute for atoms.
--
To
Look at what ratsubst will do in Maxima.
If you think you have a well-defined operation in mind, what does it
do with
substituting 1 for s^2+c^2 in the expression s^4+3*s^2*c^2+ c^4?
RJF
On Sep 29, 7:38 am, Jean-Pierre Flori jpfl...@gmail.com wrote:
Sage has the following behavior inherited
that. And it is important that we are more
or less happy about the solution.
I'm a little bit short on time in the next weeks, but I hope to get
back into it soon =)
@rjf Of course from a mathematical point of view you are correct, but
from a more pragmatic point of view you have to consider that about
80
On Sep 23, 5:46 am, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
How does doing N[Integrate[ ... ]] in MMA compare to using NIntegrate?
Isn't this obvious? N[Integrate[f[x],{x,a,b}] tries to compute
Integrate[f[x],{x,a,b}] exactly by symbolic methods. Then
evaluates the result if possible.
of coming up with an estimate. Just
drop the word rigorous .
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage
On Sep 23, 7:43 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 23, 11:19 am, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:36 am, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
I think it would be a huge overstatement to say that the symbolics
subsystem in Sage was designed in any way. IMHO
On Sep 23, 5:36 am, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
I think it would be a huge overstatement to say that the symbolics
subsystem in Sage was designed in any way. IMHO, it was mostly
patched together to support educational use, then acquired more cruft
through several rewrite attempts
. But Macsyma's defint and limit programs were
written before the
assumption system, I think, and may not make full use of such things.
And then of course the assumption system is not as smart as it could
possibly be,
nor is it as expensive as a smarter system would be.
RJF
--
To post
On Sep 22, 4:12 pm, maldun dom...@gmx.net wrote:
Perhaps I should sort out my point before we cause misunderstandings:
It's true that a user familiar with numerics knows about such
behavior.
Not necessarily. A user might not even realize that the integrand
is oscillatory, and it is
On Sep 20, 7:14 am, maldun dom...@gmx.net wrote:
That's true, but it is important that automated routines do good error
estimation
especially for smooth functions.
That is pretty easy if you have a smooth function. So perhaps we need
a program
to test if a function is smooth :)
But it
-Curtis using bigfloats
would
not be hard to do. See http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/quad.pdf
for program listings of a few quadrature routines using maxima and
bigfloats.
See what NIntegrate does, and think about
whether you want to do that.
RJF
On Sep 17, 1:45 pm, Fredrik Johansson
However, I've had no success running RJF's code. I would have thought the ANSI
Common Lisp would have covered how commands are loaded, but I am told that is
not so. If Richard could suggest how his code might be modified to run with
ECL,
then I'd like to give it a quick try and post my
On Sep 5, 2:40 pm, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 5 September 2010 22:13, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 5, 2010, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
RJF thinks Lisp is the best language
William thinks Python is God
No I don't.
I
Is it pronounced Piss-ige or Pee-Sage? What does the P stand for?
I know that dogs, etc. mark locations this way, so maybe that has to
do with geometry?
see sage-flame for a snarkier comment.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
On Sep 2, 2:23 pm, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 09/ 2/10 06:10 AM, rjf wrote:
the mathematica syntax parser that I wrote appears to run inside
Maxima, so
you can, if you wish, feed such text to the mma-in-maxima system.
Sorry to sound green, but I barely know
, but not so much that
the mockmma
parser could not be used as a basis for extension, in case some of
those extensions
turn out to be relevant somehow.
RJF
On Sep 1, 9:03 pm, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 2 September 2010 04:01, Felix Lawrence fe...@physics.usyd.edu.au wrote:
I
are a number of discussions on sage-flame.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http
of an
improvement.
Just my few cents.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http
ring,
as well as the meaning of RR.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http
, polynomial, ... and preliminary notions. This could
take about an hour of reading,
especially if you leave out proofs.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more
I suspect that many of these issues would be resolved by using Maxima
directly, using
one of the graphical interfaces (e.g. wxmaxima).
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
, anything non-nil is true.
When you say most languages I think you are mistaken unless you
count C as most languages.
RJF
On Jul 24, 5:00 pm, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 24 July 2010 22:29, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
Hi,
At Sage Days 24, I learned that Python
Here are some postdocs, some in computational science and parallel
computing.
https://jobs.llnl.gov/psc/jobs/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/s/WEBLIB_LL.VIEW_JOBS_LL.FieldFormula.IScript_View_Jobs_LL?TITLE=JOB_CAT=PD;
The one that was called to my attention appears to run for 3 years and
pays $90k/ year
--
To
) talk about unionization.
Lecturers ARE unionized, I believe.
RJF
On Jul 20, 9:57 am, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:18 pm, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't call this a postdoc. It is non-tenure track position that
requires teaching. The blurb doesn't
I wouldn't call this a postdoc. It is non-tenure track position that
requires teaching. The blurb doesn't mention
how much teaching or how much money. Actually, the ad doesn't call it
a postdoc either.
RJF
On Jul 17, 7:16 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sage-Devel,
Amazingly
(E(x),x, 1/2) ??
Can this be defined so as to coincide perfectly with the definition of
diff on integer-valued orders?
Yes. But, as I recall, in two ways. :(
RJF
On Jun 17, 3:07 am, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 16 June 2010 15:48, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun
that this is quite wrong. In some academic
circles people search for things that have not been studied much
(likely: they are not worth computing). They then write papers on how
to compute those things efficiently, referring to each others'
papers.
RJF
Dave
--
To post to this group, send
The distinction that may be worth making is that there are (at least)
two
notions of factorial. One that is subject to symbolic simplification
and one
that is a numerical subroutine. There may be yet more.
The simplification version allows for
factorial(n+1)/factorial(n) --- n+1 and does not
about gamma functions, you can leave
the
factorials around. What if your audience doesn't know about
factorials?
RJF
On Jun 15, 4:03 pm, Tom Coates t.coa...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
My vote is to have factorial(n) = n(n-1)...2.1 whenever n is integer.
Cheers,
Florent
We certainly need
On Jun 4, 11:24 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
Maybe you're claiming that Sage offers no advantage over completely
closed systems or manually managing fragmented, hard to configure,
specialized libraries, but I think both are (huge) steps in a good
direction.
they (as well as
Maxima etc) also do text formatting, plotting,
numerics. And sure, Sage can do things that Maxima cannot do (as
configured); things that Sage does by calling
some other program, or maybe even something in python. Some people
need 15 or more cupholders, too.
RJF
--
To post
Self-praise is no recommendation.
( laus in proprio ore sordescit )
Consider the following quotation from this paper:
In sharp contrast, open source libraries provide a great deal of
flexibility, since
anyone can see and modify the source code as they wish. However,
functionality
is often
On Jun 4, 9:07 am, Timothy Clemans timothy.clem...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that Sage is hard to use, hard to change, apparently
even hard to install.
Since when is writing Python code hard?
Um, you seem to think that Sage is written in Python, and that writing
Python code is easy.
shallow!) knowledge.
An example of the latter may be the failure so far to bring up Sage
natively on Windows.
And there may be other reasons that open source doesn't lead to
debugged code,
like the program is long and boring.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel
On Jun 4, 9:39 am, Timothy Clemans timothy.clem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:28 AM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:07 am, Timothy Clemans timothy.clem...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that Sage is hard to use, hard to change, apparently
even hard to install
I would be curious as to whether a Magma commercial license has ever
been sold.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
On May 29, 3:32 pm, Jason B. Hill ja...@jasonbhill.com wrote:
It is a strange business model, but in certain circles it is well-known.
Just last week, one of my old professors told me that he had bought a
subscription to Magma for his coding theory + polynomial rings research.
Still, it's
form is already in Sage, and does (3).
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http
.
Maybe you have to get some marketing writhers.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
do it in a loop and sum up a bunch
of terms.
There should be almost no need for direct human use of such code, just
as, in a properly designed language, you should have almost no need to
allocate and free memory.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
I disagree with much of the above sentiments.
If you are using a number which might be complex and your intention is
to drop the imaginary part if it is very small, then you can do so, by
taking its real part.
The producer of the complex number with zero imaginary part could have
dropped that
A discusssion of mutating versions of GMP (etc) is emphasized in
material here
http://www.mail-archive.com/sage-devel@googlegroups.com/msg27570.html
Note that converting (in applications of these Lisp programs) to gmp
integers and back is not something
you do very often. After all, if you are
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Could I be agreeing with Tom?
Well, sort of.
If you are writing a program in the context of some on-going project,
trying
to improve the program that does (say) multiplication, then it is
exactly
relevant to compare your new program to the one you propose to
replace.
And if you have yet another
arithmetic using the classic
product((x-i),i,1,n).
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL
On May 2, 9:02 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On May 2, 4:14 pm, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
I repeat,
The interesting cases are obvious those which are not covered.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that by definition
they are interesting because
On May 1, 5:42 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
...
So now anything that grows regularly can be multiplied with basically
zero loss, asymptotically fast. That probably covers most of the
interesting cases anyhow.
The interesting cases are obvious those which are not
On Apr 30, 1:57 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:58 am, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
concept. What is it used for? I
can't imagine defining a GCD in this context as divisibility is an
exact phenomenon.
Google for approximate GCD.
I hear the term numerical
On Apr 30, 2:17 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Actually, I lie, slightly. I did find one instance of `numerical
stability' used in reference to the FFT, and that is on wikipedia (so
now we all know it must be true).
Again,
Accuracy and stability of numerical algorithms
By
On Apr 30, 12:23 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
(RJF) Maxima was designed around exact arithmetic, and generally offers to
convert floats to their corresponding exact rationals before doing
anything
that requires arithmetic. It makes no claims about floats per
that requires all the
electrons in the universe to represent
explicitly.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com
On Apr 29, 10:58 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:30 AM, rjf wrote:
(RJF)Again, I see no definition of what you mean by accuracy in the result
of polynomial multiplication.The easiest position to take is that of MPFR--
considering the inputs
On Apr 27, 8:43 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's called Kronecker Substitution (or Segmentation), not Fateman
mulitplication.
.. so you can imagine MY confusion..
Since it is an algorithm for multiplying polynomials over ZZ, it
doesn't seem relevant.
It's probably
. Etc.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
for
homework, it seems to me there is an analogy and the quantitative
results are startling.
(followup could be done at the MIT page, here, or Sage-flame, or is
there a list for educational applications
of Sage??)
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
that (say) the quadratic formula is no
longer worth learning because
a computer can do it?
David: Perhaps you could copy this discussion over to sage-flame, but
I think it would be courtesy to plant a link from sage-edu.
Offhand, I don't know how to copy these items myself.
RJF
If you think
reader.
I did not send to any of the general math-education newsgroups since I
don't read any of them.
Of course the article did not mention maxima, macsyma, sage,
mathematica, etc.
Out of curiosity, did you read the article? What did YOU think about
it?
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email
from (pseudo)
random number
generators does not seem particularly fruitful. Of course if you have
an absurd number
of computers, you could try it. You could also try writing programs
by genetic programming,
and see if you get some correct ones.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage
is not / but *.
RJf
On Feb 11, 3:25 am, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Nils,
That's great, thanks! For some reason, I overlooked the utility of
operands() when I was trying things out. This seems perfectly adequate
for my purposes. The suggested extension of operands() to take
) to be rational.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
that 0.5 is a real number
representing a floating-point interval (e.g. as in Mathematica) or a
machine number etc. and not just a rational. Not realizing
that this is merely the simplest way of typing something:
sqrt(x) is 7 characters
x^(1/2) is 7 characters
x^.5 is 4 characters.
RJF
that is not still used by something
else.
Almost all lisps, but maybe not ECL? support some form of weak
pointers.
I gather from this paper
http://www.haible.de/bruno/papers/cs/weak/WeakDatastructures-writeup.html
that, as of a few years ago, this facility in python was not too
useful.
RJF
On Feb 8, 10
In which case you might read
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html
A quote
Just as people are willing to bend over backwards and make themselves
stupid in order to make an AI interface appear smart (as happens when
someone can interact with the notorious Microsoft paper
It seems clear that in Maxima, something you directly or indirectly
loaded, set those names to values.
Maybe because d1, d2, , were used for the labels automatically
generated for display lines.
You can find all such values by maxima(values).
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email
In common lisp (part of Maxima) one can do this:
(integer-decode-float (exp 1.0d0))
which produces 3 values:
6121026514868073
-51
1
In maxima you would have to prefix this with :lisp.
In Sage, perhaps
maxima :lisp (integer-decode-float
Though how Sage treats multiple-value
that.
Instead of flailing around switching Solaris compilers and what-have-
you
why not try figuring out whether the bug is printing or computing, or
even a bug at all.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage
On Dec 31, 11:15 am, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net
wrote:
RJF
The point you are missing is that we want to compare the output what Sage
prints
to a human.
The point you are missing is that the following item, which presumably
could be printed by Sage,
is perfectly readable
-
float, and so a careful printing program that prints
the minimum number of digits necessary to reconstitute the number
could omit it.
Would that make one of the two equivalent numbers erroneous?
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from
even be
useful for debugging purposes, though usually
one runs the whole system at full compiled speed and only runs the
part you want to debug as interpreted code.
RJF
On Dec 21, 11:11 am, ma...@mendelu.cz ma...@mendelu.cz wrote:
On 21 pro, 09:21, cch cchu...@mail.cgu.edu.tw wrote:
Maxima
It's an ECL bug, not a Maxima bug.
Quoting from Ray Toy on maxima mailing list..
Robert asked on the ecl list about this, and it turns out it was a
bug
in ecl wherein ecl would actually stat everything. I think it's fixed
now. This would also explain why I wasn't seeing this since I'm using
a
a script up to the point of the
bug, even if that script is time consuming. Does this suggest an
alternative way of putting together Sage? Or should such comments be
consigned to flames?
Anyway, you can look in sage-flame for more.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel
, and continued on for some time..)
(In the years after 1980 some 50 VAX-Macsyma test sites were set up,
and later the program was sold etc.)
RJF
I think that compiling all of Maxima typically takes between 10
minutes and an hour, depending on your
machine and your choice of Lisp system. That doesn't
You can use any of several determinant programs in Maxima.
I don't know if the documentation is available in Sage.
There are significant differences in running time for rational forms,
sparse matrices, and maybe other options,
for which different algorithms are more or less appropriate.
RJF
). I consider that, to
the extent that he is encouraging
the rewriting of existing code (in Python) it is more like (1).
[Though re-using existing systems has
aspects of (2)]
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
become
unproductive if many people are encouraged to (say) spend their time
duplicating complicated algorithms, or worse, writing
naive versions of complicated algorithms -- that do not quite do the
hardest stuff -- . That kind of competition is not helpful, in my
view.
RJF
--
To post
the system with the best signal processing library.
Is that Sage?
RJF
On Nov 24, 5:41 am, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On Nov 23, 11:01 pm, mhampton hampto...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought that Mark McClure's post on another thread raised some
interesting issues
I do not have any special knowledge about why sage math leads to a
wolfram ad, but
perhaps Google has noticed that the pages that are about sage often
mention Mathematica.
Rather prominently, too.
The pages about foo don't mention Mathematica much.
Therefore sage math is in closer proximity to
On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
(RJF) Thus someone doing signal processing calculations will likely choose
the system with the best signal processing library.
(RJF) Is that Sage?
(WS) Is that Maxima?
Unlikely.
Matlab has a popular signal processing library
On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
(RJF) For example, claiming great advantages to rewriting working software
in the language du jour (currently, Python).
FUD. Sage does *vastly* more than rewrite working software.
I did not say that was the only thing that Sage
On Nov 24, 1:07 pm, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On Nov 24, 2009, at 12:10 PM, rjf wrote:
No one is claiming that there aren't (gross) inefficiencies in the
system, but I am one of many who subscribe to the belief that most of
the time completion provides better
and buy the thin gruel he uses as the
basis for his diet.
I think that if NSF sent the proposal over to computer science and
engineering, it might not get a great reception, but it is hard to
predict such things.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
On Nov 23, 8:38 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:28 AM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
From the proposal
... and which has sophisti-
cated interfaces to nearly all other mathematics software, including
Mathematica, Maple,
MATLAB and Magma
, I would
assume the paper was about some improved method.
It is, of course, your NSF proposal, and you can say whatever you
wish.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
On Nov 23, 1:33 pm, Alex Ghitza aghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 01:04:25PM -0800, rjf wrote:
Actually, while Maxima includes library access to Fortran methods, it
is far inferior to what could be done in numeric integration,
as demonstrated by recent Mathematica
Is the topic of how should a Sage proposal be written so that it is
funded by NSF really something to be relegated to sage-flame?
I don't know how many other readers here have (repeatedly) served as
NSF reviewers or panelists evaluating proposals.
Based on my contributions to the writing of this
On Nov 23, 3:49 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM,rjffate...@gmail.com wrote:
venerable Maxima is mentioned once, suggesting that the only thing
it can do is symbolic integration and numeric integration.
Actually, while Maxima includes library
as opponents of Sage, too??
Or do you only count commercial programs?
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http
absolutely controls how everybody interprets and
thinks about mathematical computation.
If you don't like Wolfram Alpha, you don't need to use it. It appears
to be free, though not open source.
Wolfram is not my favorite person either. So what?
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email
as a distinct subcomponent, but it probably wouldn't
be too useful. For example,
does x^6 occur in x*(x^5+1)?
I suggest you require that the value of v be a symbol.
RJF
On Oct 11, 7:33 am, ma...@mendelu.cz ma...@mendelu.cz wrote:
On 11 říj, 15:50, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
Does
snip...
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage
On Oct 4, 11:00 am, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
snip..
You (or anyone else) could have followed Fredrik's frequent and
detailed blogposts here:
http://planet.sympy.org/
I quote from a recent entry by Frederik:
The tests above use well-behaved object functions; some corner
am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:30 PM, rjf wrote:
hey, factoring-testing guys..
If you make up factoring problems this way, you are probably not doing
much testing of the real factoring algorithms.
Actually, given this bug has been in Sage
terms with alternating sign. This does not appear to be
what you are doing.
While your method may work sometimes, I suspect it is neither fast nor
reliable.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
I think that this is one of those times that you might like to look up
in the literature how to do something, instead of pulling an
algorithm out of your posterior. Stable evaluation of polynomials is
the subject.
On Oct 1, 10:01 pm, Carlo Hamalainen carlo.hamalai...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue,
in that paper for yet more ideas.
Or use Google. Try searching forpolynomial evaluation FFT
for some odd papers.
RJF
On Oct 2, 10:42 am, Fredrik Johansson fredrik.johans...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:14 PM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that this is one of those times that you
of the operations (substantially. Not just a
few bits.)
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit
401 - 500 of 603 matches
Mail list logo
