On Jul 18, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
On Jul 18, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Burcin Erocal wrote:
I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial
attempt
at the MMA notation:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6344
FYI, a few days ago Burcin
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Jason Groutjason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
OLD:
sage: var('x,y')
sage: f = function('f')
sage: f(x).derivative(x)
D[0](f)(x)
sage: f(x,x).derivative(x,2)
D[0, 0](f)(x, x) + 2*D[0, 1](f)(x, x) + D[1, 1](f)(x, x)
NEW:
sage: f(x).derivative(x)
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:54:34 -0700
William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Jason
Groutjason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
Burcin Erocal wrote:
I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial
attempt at the MMA notation:
On Jul 18, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Burcin Erocal wrote:
I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial
attempt
at the MMA notation:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6344
FYI, a few days ago Burcin uploaded a new patch on 6344 and asked for
Burcin Erocal wrote:
I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial attempt
at the MMA notation:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6344
FYI, a few days ago Burcin uploaded a new patch on 6344 and asked for
review. Here are the examples:
OLD:
sage: var('x,y')
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Jason Groutjason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
Burcin Erocal wrote:
I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial attempt
at the MMA notation:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6344
FYI, a few days ago Burcin uploaded a new patch
Hi Burcin,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org wrote:
I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial attempt
at the MMA notation:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6344
It doesn't work well for text mode:
sage: f = function('f')
Hi
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org wrote:
If there are no objections to the above definition of hybrid approach,
the options for default printing are:
1) Mathematica style
2) Maple style
3) hybrid
I still vote for 1, MMA style. To state the reasons again,
Burcin Erocal wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:42:46 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM, kcrismankcris...@gmail.com wrote:
So the conclusion is that we will go with the Mathematica style
notation.
Does that also apply to Golam's
+1 for the MMA style.
I am +1 for mathematica style, but can someone explain why
In[5]:= D[F[x+2*y], x, x]
Out[5]= F''[x + 2 y]
Why is x somehow considered special and y not?
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to
2009/6/24 Nick Alexander ncalexan...@gmail.com:
+1 for the MMA style.
I am +1 for mathematica style, but can someone explain why
In[5]:= D[F[x+2*y], x, x]
Out[5]= F''[x + 2 y]
Why is x somehow considered special and y not?
F is a function of one variable. F'' is its second
On 24-Jun-09, at 9:42 AM, John Cremona wrote:
2009/6/24 Nick Alexander ncalexan...@gmail.com:
+1 for the MMA style.
I am +1 for mathematica style, but can someone explain why
In[5]:= D[F[x+2*y], x, x]
Out[5]= F''[x + 2 y]
Why is x somehow considered special and y not?
F is a
Hi Golam,
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:58:19 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org
wrote:
If there are no objections to the above definition of hybrid
approach, the options for default printing are:
1)
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:42:46 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain gmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM, kcrismankcris...@gmail.com wrote:
So the conclusion is that we will go with the Mathematica style
notation.
Does that also apply to Golam's earlier comment
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Robert
Bradshawrober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:19 PM, William Stein wrote:
Personally, I prefer the Mathematica notation because I can actually
read it. I have (serious!) trouble reading the current notation that
Sage uses and I
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:20:31 +0200
William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Robert
Bradshawrober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:19 PM, William Stein wrote:
Personally, I prefer the Mathematica notation because I can
actually read
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:30 PM, William Steinwst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossaingmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org wrote:
There were long discussion about the typesetting of partial
So the conclusion is that we will go with the Mathematica style notation.
Does that also apply to Golam's earlier comment
(a) If we all agree that there is no ambiguity when the particular
argument is a symbolic variable or symbolic function then
we should typeset them as
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:20 PM, kcrismankcris...@gmail.com wrote:
So the conclusion is that we will go with the Mathematica style notation.
Does that also apply to Golam's earlier comment
(a) If we all agree that there is no ambiguity when the particular
argument is a symbolic
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM, kcrismankcris...@gmail.com wrote:
So the conclusion is that we will go with the Mathematica style notation.
Does that also apply to Golam's earlier comment
(a) If we all agree that there is no ambiguity when the particular
argument is a
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossaingmhoss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org wrote:
There were long discussion about the typesetting of partial derivatives
in the new system, but I don't think we got to a conclusion
2009/6/14 Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org:
Hi again,
There were long discussion about the typesetting of partial derivatives
in the new system, but I don't think we got to a conclusion yet. The
previous thread is here:
On Jun 14, 2009, at 3:45 PM, John Cremona wrote:
2009/6/14 Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org:
Hi again,
There were long discussion about the typesetting of partial
derivatives
in the new system, but I don't think we got to a conclusion yet. The
previous thread is here:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:45:11 +0100
John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/14 Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org:
snip
Here is what MMA does:
In[1]:= D[F[x], x]
Out[1]= F'[x]
In[2]:= TeXForm[%]
Out[2]//TeXForm= F'(x)
In[3]:= D[F[x], x, x, x, x, x]
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:45 PM, John Cremonajohn.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/14 Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org:
Hi again,
There were long discussion about the typesetting of partial derivatives
in the new system, but I don't think we got to a conclusion yet. The
previous thread is
Hi
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Burcin Erocalbur...@erocal.org wrote:
There were long discussion about the typesetting of partial derivatives
in the new system, but I don't think we got to a conclusion yet.
I am afraid, we might never reach a conclusion in this regard :-)
It seems to be a
Personally, I prefer the Mathematica notation because I can actually
read it. I have (serious!) trouble reading the current notation that
Sage uses and I can barely read the Maple notation either. With the
Mathematica notation it is totally completely obvious to me what is
going on.
+1
On Jun 14, 12:38 pm, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
Hi again,
There were long discussion about the typesetting of partial derivatives
in the new system, but I don't think we got to a conclusion yet. The
previous thread is here:
28 matches
Mail list logo
