On Aug 21, 7:44 am, Andelf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am a starter, so I don't understand why this goes wrong
I typed:
x = var('x')
f = log(2+sqrt(arctan(x)*sin(1/x)))
lim(f, x=0)
and got:
Traceback (click to the left for traceback)
...
Is sin(1/x)*atan(x) positive or zero?
actually
I thought I would take my first shot at contributing to Sage by making
desolve return a SymbolicExpression instead of a string. Doing so
turned out to be pretty easy, but I got hung up trying to get the
other methods in desolvers.py to do the same. Anyway, after getting
my hands in this code a
On Aug 21, 7:50 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:41 PM, David Philp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how much of the below is possible or available in Sage.
But I miss they syntax from Mathematica. I love the fact that it
doesn't wear down the
On Aug 21, 9:01 pm, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I guess Mathematica is the leader on solving differential equations
symbolically, and pending other great ideas, I think their syntax is
worth copying. Here's an example
On Aug 21, 10:39 pm, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
That sounds good too, as long as boundary conditions are input in the
form of equations rather than grunts. I like it a little less in the
case that you don't want to supply any
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:28 PM, David Philp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All the explanations that sage can do that have involved python
lists, because I used names and examples like 'data = {1, 2, 3}'. But
the power of ReplaceAll (the /. operator) is that it places no
Brian Hayes writes a regular column for American Scientist called
Computing Science. In his latest article, Calculemus!
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2008/5/calculemus/1, Hayes
suggests that widely available tools for doing simple calculations and
mathematical experiments have not
that pattern matching makes possible. I'm happy to
answer any more questions about it.
Regards,
Jason Merrill
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more
On Aug 25, 7:46 am, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In hopes that it may be a useful reference during the current work on
symbolics, I wrote a toy Mathematica program for transforming a single
higher order ODE
On Aug 25, 12:50 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In hopes that it may be a useful reference during the current work
On Aug 24, 6:55 pm, Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In hopes that it may be a useful reference during the current work on
symbolics, I wrote a toy Mathematica program for transforming a single
higher order ODE into a system of first order ODEs. Most of the free
numerical differential
On Aug 21, 6:54 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Jason Grout wrote:
What do people think of changing line() and text() to only give 2d
graphics. Currently, the behavior for line() seems to be something
like, passing in a list of coordinates:
1. if the
Where there is a choice, Sage should feel like traditional mathematics
when posing mathematical problems, rather than a traditional
programming language. The following interface ideas follow from that
principle. Could this be a starting point for an SEP?
Mathematicians are expected to be able
On Sep 2, 10:40 pm, mhampton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks very much for this response. ffmpeg looks very useful to me, I
am checking it out right now. It is unclear to me what the overlap is
with mplayer/mencoder. It seems that ffmpeg is somewhat leaner and
more portable, so I am
Live syntax highlighting for the notebook would be awesome. I'm sure
it would be hard to implement, but have a look at this demonstration
of codemirror:
http://marijn.haverbeke.nl/codemirror/jstest.html
which does live syntax highlighting for javascript in the browser.
The details are pretty
On Sep 3, 8:35 pm, Andrzej Giniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just noticed one thing, during close (by ctrl+c) of sage that run
notebook (with sage --notebook) I got unhandled error (it's 100%
reproducible for me):
2008-09-04 02:30:56+0200 [-] Saving notebook...
2008-09-04 02:30:56+0200 [-]
There are many operations in Sage that take a function/expression as
the first argument, and one or more variables with ranges as
subsequent arguments. The prototype is plot(x^2*sin(x),-4*pi,4*pi).
It would be nice if the syntax were consistent across all such
functions. There are already
Maybe some of you have seen this before, but I think try ruby is an
excellent model to follow for pulling people in. No registration, and
it offers a nice guided tutorial if you want, with plenty of leeway to
experiment on your own. At the end of a little tutorial you could
offer options for
Looking at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3980, I formed
the opinion that a lot of times where .variables() or .arguments() is
used, it may be a mistake.
On that ticket, it was pointed out that find_root(sin,-1,1) throws an
error. Maybe this is a bug, maybe not, but in any case,
On Sep 8, 7:42 pm, Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
One additional consideration is that it is useful in this case to know
whether an expression is constant, as a performance consideration.
The regular algorithm works (slowly) on constant input, but it's
faster if we can just
On Sep 9, 5:22 am, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arg, I know what is wrong and it was a dumb mistake of mine. The spkg
at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.1.2/rc...
fixes the issue. My apologies, it seems that everything that can go
wrong will go wrong in
On Sep 9, 6:35 pm, Justin Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, all,
Whilst looking at some code, I noticed that a computation was being
repeated on each call, although the inputs to the computation never
changed (these were values used to define an instance of a class). I
decided to
I have some ideas and questions I'd like to share about how to make a
nice interface for derivatives of objects with several variables and/
or dimensions. Right now, Sage has diff for partial derivatives, and
gradient for gradients, but I think there's room for extending Sage's
capabilities.
On Sep 13, 5:02 pm, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:54 am, Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jason,
I tried to build 3.1.2.rc2 on OS X 10.5.4 intel macbook. As with the
previous release candidate, the build choked while building the clisp
documentation
Is there a convention for see also information? I thought I'd fix
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3422 . The doc has
\begin{seealso}
See \seeurl{http://www.dtc.umn.edu/\~{}odlyzko/zeta_tables/}{}
\end{seealso}
But when I run
sage: search_doc('seealso')
the odlyzko file
Thanks to all for the practical advice and encouragement, and also to
dphilp for some useful off-list comments. I definitely don't intend
to try and push anything through that will cause all kinds of
troublesome breakages, and I also don't want to waste lots of my own
time or yours. I'll
I was musing about formal symbolic expressions on sage support:
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/78dc8d2d476acc46
but thought it was time to move it over to devel. The motivation is
to have a nice notation for formal integrals and derivatives:
sage:
On Sep 17, 2:20 am, Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a monkeypatch that makes this work(ish)
from sage.calculus.calculus import SymbolicExpression
class FormalSymbolicExpression(SymbolicExpression):
def __init__(self,expr):
self.expr = expr
# just delegate
On Sep 17, 12:37 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason,
Just a heads up -- your code above is going to become pointless when we switch
to using Ginac as a backend for symbolic manipulation, since Sage will no
longer
keep its own expression tree.
Thanks for the heads up. The
On Sep 18, 8:01 am, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There will be a way to represent formal integration and summation.
I believe avoiding automatic simplification of arbitrary expressions
requires more work (I haven't checked this yet.), but even that
shouldn't be too complicated.
This is fixed in 3.1.2
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3907
JM
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
On Nov 6, 4:11 am, Jan Groenewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about being able to click on tutorial somewhere near new worksheet
in the sage notebook? Which could present you cell by cell with explanatory
text, and then you execute the command to continue, and get a chance to try
on even
if I find myself without an institutional Mathematica or Matlab
license someday.
Anyway, I don't mean to belabor the introductory essay, just to say
that I think it ought to be published separately from the tutorial.
Regards,
Jason Merrill
33 matches
Mail list logo
