Note that variables are complex by default in Sage. There is some support
for what you attempt in Sage:
sage: a,b,c= var('a,b,c', domain='real')
sage: assume(a>0, b >0)
sage: (a+b).is_positive()
True
But anything more needs an SMT solver in Sage
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19000
On
Thank you!
I think I could start by exposing these ARB functions to SAGE,
so that the interface is more complete, and then try to do the same
for Real Interval.
Best wishes
Isaia
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:59:36 AM UTC-3, Marc Mezzarobba wrote:
>
> Nisoli Isaia wrote:
> > P.=CBF[]
> >
I am performing some symbolic calculations and found that Sage does not
automatically linearly combine symbolic assumptions.
Minimal example:
sage: forget()
: a,b,c= var('a,b,c')
: assume(a>0, b+c >0)
: print bool(a+b+c > 0)
: print assumptions()
:
False
[a > 0, b + c > 0]
Hi Bea,
On 2019-04-23, Bea Galiana wrote:
> I've been reading the general conventions about writing tests but I'm not
> really sure about where should I add it. I did take a look at others
> scripts where doctests have been added before and it seems I should I write
> it as a comment, so I
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:00 PM Bea Galiana wrote:
> I've never added a doctest before so this question might be a bit too simple.
>
> I've been reading the general conventions about writing tests but I'm not
> really sure about where should I add it. I did take a look at others scripts
>
Hi everyone,
I've never added a doctest before so this question might be a bit too
simple.
I've been reading the general conventions about writing tests but I'm not
really sure about where should I add it. I did take a look at others
scripts where doctests have been added before and it seems I
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:36:25 PM UTC+2, E. Madison Bray wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:06 PM Erik Bray wrote:
> >
> > We still have quite a bit of code around for supporting old-style
> > packages in .spkg archives, though it is not well tested anymore and
> > I'm not even 100%
On 23.04.19 01:37, John H Palmieri wrote:
> I was running a patchbot successfully until some time last week. For
> reasons I don't understand, I did "git pull" on the patchbot, and now it
> won't run with Python 2, complaining
AFAIK, the patchbot runs on Python 3 only (so, yes, you need this
