s,
and less obvious design objectives).. I would count among these
the Maxima "assumption" database, "equation solving", and
symbolic (contour) definite integration.
These are not new thoughts, I'm not sure where you
can go with this. You can call me mean if you like.
I hav
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 8:48:24 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> (RJF)
>> Finally, this message demonstrates a major defect in the idea behind Sage.
>> That is, people involved in the project might find a problem, but they
>> have
>> insufficient exp
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 1:16:35 AM UTC-7, Sergey V Kozlukov wrote:
>
> Why so offensive?
>
> Well, i didn't "report a bug", i started discussion
> And there is "simple demo" in the first post
>
It looks to me like you reported a discrepancy which everyone else would
start
by considering a
integrate( lambda(y),x^2+y^2)) could be mechanically converted to
integrate(x^2+y^2, y)
and vice versa.
There is a name for this in lambda calculus. alpha conversion or some such
thing.
Should you do this?
doesn't matter. But if so, do it for summation, products, plotting, etc.
On
I don't know what nonsense you are trying out, but f(r,phi):=signum(r^2-4)
is a function that does not
depend on phi.
If you want to integrate functions that are discontinuous, there are two
processes
involved. One: find the continuous pieces and break up the problem.
Two, integrate, as
unordered, and in particular if x is a NaN, it
is
not equal to x.
There is a partial calculus that allows for rational number-like objects
including 1/0, -1/0, 0/0, 0/1, 0/(-1). Which I've written about. And
implemented.
It can be read into the Maxima part of Sage.
RJF
On Thursday, March 10, 2016
s.gov/ooh/healthcare/dental-hygienists.htm
If Wiliam is doing SAGE for pleasure,sure. If he
is doing it for money, that's not a great plan.
Rjf
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:37:03 AM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Hi. This is a fascinating discussion, but I probably just burnt out my
I think it is somewhat disheartening to see Mathematica accepted as
a program whose major or only flaw is that it is not open source.
But maybe I didn't read all the comments. It seems that the
ycombinator contributors tend to rattle on a while.
RjF
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:49:13 AM
n shopping, but have so little restraint as to
read this posting on the same day.
RJF
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:16:49 PM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> Let me summarize an exchange of messages I just had with Richard.
> He is upset by the fact that tax dollars (NSF grant
mal requirement to enter medical school in the United States)"
Maybe he knows someone at the NSF. :)
Best wishes to all for a Happy Thanksgiving (USA holiday this week).
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubs
comparing I>0 you could coerce 0 to complex and then use some ordering
imposed on some measure of complex, like abs(). To halt a computation
as meaningless might not be the most useful default.
Example for this guy... A converging iteration x[i] that is halted when
sqrt(x[i])< 1.0e-16.
As a
I think that if you look back at the early rave reviews of Mathematica in
such
notable scientific journals as the New York Times, you will see that the
reporters were impressed by color graphics of 3-d plots and endorsement
of such scientific notables as Steve Jobs, Also the eccentric aspects of
, Clay, Beale, maybe
Paulson.
What would motivate them?
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.co
ave one huge unified Sage system in which there is a command "make me
a new Sage system".
(There were/ maybe still are? some systems of that nature in the Lisp
world.)
So now you can read the answer.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
If the original program has constants that are good for ordinary floating
precision,
then increasing the precision without increasing the accuracy may not do
what
you want.
For example, converting 3.1415926 (etc) by extending with decimal or
binary 0's might
not do the right thing.
In fact,
ng computer
programming.
Even if they promise to give away the programs to Mathematicians.
Sadly, the blog post leads one to suggest this hypothesis:
if Sage cost money, just like Magma, maybe
Simons would give money to the Sage project so that it would provide
free copies to the mathema
bug-free..
RJF
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 10:10:39 AM UTC-7, Gregory Bard wrote:
There is an integral which Sage correctly numerically integrates, and
which Sage symbolically gets very wrong. William and I looked into this
during Sage Days 68, and he discovered that, in fact, Maxima
://mybiasedcoin.blogspot.com/2007/11/service-and-nsf.html
My sympathies go out to people who have proposals rejected.
Life is not fair, William.
RJF
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 1:57:14 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Certainly, ODK will do Sage days, and fund US-based Sage devs
in other possible ways
the uses of the IEEE 754 binary
standard's
infinity.
Or your could point to Maxima, not explain anything and say , uh, What he
said.
RJF
On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 11:46:12 PM UTC-7, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Calculus ahead, algebraists beware!
Is Sage's unsigned_infinity intended to model
On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 6:21:43 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
1. anyone who believes that sqrt(x^2) is |x| is mistaken. As Bill Page
says, there are two values.
Ah, the old 'function versus expression' debate. I really missed that.
2. any system that automatically produces |x|
1. anyone who believes that sqrt(x^2) is |x| is mistaken. As Bill Page
says, there are two values.
2. any system that automatically produces |x| can be tricked into
committing serious errors.
Currently, Maxima apparently does this. Some people consider this a
feature. Clearly we
have
with symbolic_max over some domain
(2) being not obviouslly bogus.
The corresponding question for sum is tricky. Do you want to do
sum as an iteration? Always? Consider sum of i =1 to 1
which is either trivial and time consuming or symbolic-trivial and fast.
RJF
On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 6
What do you mean by available ? You could presumably type them in as
formulas.
My browser doesn't show anything in the inline image.
Numerical evaluation of (for example) Bessel functions are generally done
by algorithms based on asymptotic formulas. (e.g. in Maxima)
RJF
On Friday, April 24
. After all, if an
algorithm precisely
can be expressed in a high level way, a good enough compiler should be
able to
produce extremely efficient code.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
to
be impressed by Magma...
If you want to do what Magma does, sure. I have not used it. I looked at
Cayley,
and was impressed by the poorly designed programming language aspect.
Maybe Magma is better that way, but maybe it doesn't matter.
RJF
--
You received this message because you
Here's an item that is related but far more edifying.
http://norvig.com/lispy.html
I looked at the Hy documentation, and it appears that
Hy hardly implements lisp. It alters the surface syntax
of python to parenthesized prefix, and tosses in a very small subset of
lisp.
Hy resembles a 3-week
Look up, on Amazon,
SIGMA elvey
The author, John Elvey, died recently. He did, however, interact
with research groups at Waterloo and at Berkeley, some years ago.
I know that the Berkeley group was unable to do much with this,
and I suspect a similar result at U Waterloo. Maybe
Sage-ists
with a $ by convention in maxima's underlying
lisp.
If you want to learn more about maxima, you can read its documentation.
The differences between Maxima in ECL and Maxima in some other
implementation
of lisp should be negligible.
RJF
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:09:21 AM UTC-8, Snark wrote:
Hi,
I
phase (think: cubic, quartic formulas) stuck into the original expression
may not simplify with current programs.
But if you can do a better job simplifying, you could consider that.
Apparently WRI offers such a check.
RJF
I vaguely remember back in maybe
2007 when Sage was getting a lot
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:21:28 PM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote:
Would you agree to change the word to symbolically then?
I don't really care; I care about better symbolic/algebraic solving in
Sage, though I am not in a position to provide it. That sounds fine.
the name of the ACM
and not on
unix. Last I looked, Linux /free-open stuff was way behind on (say) speech
recognition. I'm sure there are other places too.
Is there a native Android sage? (I know that Maxima runs on my phone, but
without a
keyboard, it's clumsy.)
RJF
--
You received this message because you
On Friday, December 5, 2014 1:18:12 AM UTC-8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2014-12-05 08:17, Nathann Cohen wrote:
In your past experiences (possibly when using Sage to teach in a
classroom), in which areas do you think we are behind users'
expectations ?
I think the worst is symbolic
be zero is
problematical in general.)
On Monday, December 15, 2014 2:29:54 PM UTC-8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2014-12-15 20:47, rjf wrote:
Maybe it's an appropriate response?
No, it's not.
Note that dividing both sides by sqrt(x) gives you sqrt(x)=1.
So the solution is x=1
On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:44:25 AM UTC-8, William wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:34 AM, rjf fat...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
William said ... There's no question that in say 200?, Microsoft
Windows support was
absolutely critical for widespread adoption of a piece
maybe this could be added.
A method called something like ExponentCoeffPairsExcludingZeros,
which would return a list ofexponent,coeff pairs, in some exponent
order.
Maybe that's inconvenient in Python/sympy.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
make a decision without reference to a
Code of Conduct.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
On Sunday, November 30, 2014 9:03:39 PM UTC-8, William wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 8:14 PM, rjf fat...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:35:21 PM UTC-8, William wrote:
See this interesting document:
http://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/compare
A short voting period certainly makes the result open to dispute.
Anyone wishing to post anything offensive to some people will
be unlikely to abide by some code which he/she might not have
read, anyway. Sage-flame is always there, anyway.
RJF
--
You received this message because you
that another group of people think is wrong, then consider
the US Congress.
Do you want votes, vetoes, filibusters?
I think the nuclear option is to make a project fork, as was done
for example in the CAS Axiom -- FriCAS.
RJF
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:05:51 PM UTC-8, Nathann Cohen
source development (resolving
disputes?) Has it been explored in journals? (I'm not well-read on
whatever
literature there is on open source pro/con recently.)
RJF
rjf, I (once again) *highly* recommend Steven Weber's
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018587 The Success
.)
RJF
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:40:00 PM UTC-8, john_perry_usm wrote:
On Friday, November 14, 2014 3:55:34 AM UTC+1, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
Bullying can get so bad that the teachers need to step in and enact the
correct punishment.
...yet, in my experience, they usually don't
? Should it try to
find appropriate reviewers this time?
I hope that my frankness somehow falls within the proposd guidelines
of the recenty proposed Code of Conduct. Sorry if it doesn't.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group
On Friday, November 14, 2014 5:05:20 AM UTC-8, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:05 AM, rjf wrote:
If the AMS Notices is publishing papers that should instead be
submitted to computer science publications
(Software Practice and Experience comes to mind), should computer
Sadly, from a computer science perspective there are more questions raised
than answered.
Like how was it shown that this complicated system of algorithms was fast
and accurate?
(Requires testing).
Is Sage better than the other open source programs on this task for usual
(small?) cases
or
if you are looking to proof equivalence to zero, you could use the
zeroequiv command in maxima, which is
going to be, in general, pretty fast. But as i recall, if it says false
that merely means it could not prove the
expression is zero. Look for discussion of bugs / features in maxima
that assumption is made.
Sage apparently does not call Maxima for this, since
is(equal(0,exp(512*(x+1; takes 0.05ms, even if one
provides the irrelevant declare(x,real).
Or if it calls Maxima, it does something else for quite a while.
RJF
Hi,
I know that comparing symbolic expressions
On Monday, November 3, 2014 5:01:03 PM UTC-8, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby
Microwave Ltd) wrote:
...
snip
While I usually find Kirby's posts to be so self-cancelling under close
examination
that no response is required,
I think he has a point here.
In fact there used to be a newsgroup
I don't relish the prospect of another article that essentially
says,
We love open source because (whatever you trot out as advantages).
People DO test and find bugs in closed source programs.
For example, running them on cases for which the answer is already
known (e.g. solving differential
On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 11:38:33 AM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote:
On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 10:54:51 AM UTC-8, rjf wrote:
Sage apparently does not call Maxima for this, since
is(equal(0,exp(512*(x+1; takes 0.05ms, even if one
provides the irrelevant declare(x,real
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:14:43 AM UTC-7, Harald Schilly wrote:
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:25:08 PM UTC+1, parisse wrote:
Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here?
I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the
fastest: 0.02s on my
On Friday, October 24, 2014 7:32:37 PM UTC-7, jason wrote:
On 10/24/14, 20:55, Jason Grout wrote:
P.S. It would be interesting to see if Sage can do the calculation they
identified as buggy in mathematica. That would make for a cool
follow-up editorial.
I disagree. The paper
the job you propose needs new programs.
And whether the new programs are self sustaining or would
be stale immediately after funding stopped.
Just some thoughts. I have not been on an NSF review panel for
at least 10 years.
RJF
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:51:13 AM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 4:42:54 PM UTC-7, Anne Schilling wrote:
Dear All!
Dan Bump, Ben Salisbury, Mark Shimozono and I are planning to apply
for an NSF grant for Sage (to fund Sage Days and other Sage related
activities).
Math presumably not Computer Science.
Does Math
This article is also discussed in another thread .. Trio .
.
Depending on what you are doing with the results of any computation, it
may be prudent to verify the results. I don't know that CAS are especially
more prone to bugs, but it may be that CAS are more likely to come up
with results that
) is
puzzling, but maybe it has to do
with a crappy solution of a quartic.
Anyway, reporting more bugs in these systems -- eh, I guess AMS can publish
whatever it wants to publish.
RJF
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:37:42 AM UTC-7, jason wrote:
On 10/25/14, 0:07, William Stein wrote:
They are fun
On Friday, October 10, 2014 6:26:24 PM UTC-7, Alasdair wrote:
I've written an article about using Sage to develop explicit Runge-Kutta
formulas for the numerical solution of ODEs.
Since the use of a computer algebra system to develop explicit R-K formulas
is pretty much
of a classic
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 8:59:22 AM UTC-7, Simon King wrote:
Hi!
On 2014-10-01, Francesco Biscani blues...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
As a non-mathematician, I would be curious to know what (if any) big
results in pure mathematics can be ascribed directly to the use of
For your information, in Mathematica one can get extra precision by adding
enough zeros (more than 16 or so)
and in my opinion the design of the significance arithmetic there is deeply
flawed. I hope that Sage and
sympy do not take Mathematica as a guide for what the user should see.
RJF
On Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:32:24 AM UTC-7, Viviane Pons wrote:
which is quite common for many programming languages as floats are quite
a messy thing (which is not due to python, floats are messy everywhere).
It used to be well known to programmers that you shouldn't
.
1/2
0.5
I don't know what other new features it might have, but this one, it
seems, would
also interfere with Sage. Why can't it just be 1/2 ?
On Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:18:29 PM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
To the extent that python's world view affects Sage and its users, it is
too
The first comment points to the QED project, recently celebrating 20+ years.
QED+20: Twenty Years of the QED Manifesto
July 18, 2014, Vienna, Austriahttp://vsl2014.at/meetings/QED-index.html
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
QED+20: Twenty Years of the QED Manifesto is a workshop
commemorating the 20th
= 0, and that wouldn't trouble you. In Lisp,
1/2 is
what you would might expect. For example (= (+ 1/2 1/2) 1) returns
t. And Maxima
also knows about 1/2.
On Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:13:20 AM UTC-5, rjf wrote:
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:33:19 PM UTC-7, Chris
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:33:19 PM UTC-7, Chris Seberino wrote:
I read W. Stein's blog on why he thinks Sage is failing since it isn't on
par with Maple, Mathematica and other Ma*'s *now*.
I teach high schoolers and college students. At that level Sage is more
than adequate as
fairly easily, since
it is extraordinarily regular in syntax and semantics.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr
On Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:24:27 PM UTC-7, wstein wrote:
Hi Sage Devs,
I just received this email which links to a report about global
digital math libraries and also a long and opinionated document by
somebody named Nelson Beebe.
I think this is an odd way of referring to
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:54:02 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:57 PM, rjf fat...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:55:37 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM, rjf fat...@gmail.com wrote
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:55:56 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
You're (intentionally?) missing the point.
Given the linear system Ax = b, where A and b are given in terms of
floating point numbers, one could
(1) Return x' that is the closest (according to some chosen rounding
On Friday, August 22, 2014 2:04:35 PM UTC-7, Bill Hart wrote:
RJF said...
I don't know about canonical maps. The term canonical representation
makes sense to me.
He means this. In algebra Z/nZ is actually a ring modulo an ideal. Z is
the ring, nZ is the ideal.
The elements of Z/nZ
each point is trivial, yet wrong from my perspective.
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 7:35:13 PM UTC-7, Erik Massop wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 18:57:21 -0700 (PDT), rjf fat...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:55:37 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7
, ... and so the integers
153,154,155,156,157 all become 155.
to only being able to read 3 significant (decimal) figures.
(RJF said this)
Actually this analogy is false. The 3 digits (sometimes 4) from a
slide rule are the best that can be read out because of the inherent
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 7:08:24 PM UTC-7, Bill Hart wrote:
You didn't tell us the answers to the riddles. Or did I miss them.
oops/ 4 legs. calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:55:37 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM, rjf fat...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8:11:21 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
The are two representations of the same canonical object
, coefficients. (This is not usually a choice a CAS designer has to
make -- it is
easier to program a non-naive polynomial multiplication program.)
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
There is a different answer from Maxima, at least different from what is
posted.
algebraic:true;
tellrat(x^3+3*x+1);
resultant(f,g,y)
gives
2201*x^2-2042*x-885
Note that Maxima can also compute the resultant wrt x without
renaming variables.
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:25:19 AM UTC-7,
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 7:59:00 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:36 PM, rjf fat...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, August 3, 2014 10:11:57 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 11:16 PM, rjf fat...@gmail.com wrote
On Sunday, August 3, 2014 10:11:57 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 11:16 PM, rjf fat...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:23:03 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
[1] http://maxima.sourceforge.net/docs/manual/en/maxima_29.html
Perhaps Axiom
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:23:03 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:11 PM, rjf fat...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:22:39 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:47 PM, rjf fat...@gmail.com wrote
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:22:39 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:47 PM, rjf fat...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
On Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:43:57 AM UTC-7, defeo wrote:
However
On Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
On Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:43:57 AM UTC-7, defeo wrote:
However, Julia multimethods are backed up by a powerful coercion
system, so I do not understand the step back criticism.
That comment wasn't made with respect to
As Nils says, Lisp has dealt with this in CLOS (Common Lisp Object System.
Among other advantages, it is possible to properly compile such calls when
the
type discrimination can be done at compile time.
If you have enough
mathematical categories, the discrimination based on implementation
On Monday, June 30, 2014 10:24:39 AM UTC-7, William wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
Thanks Volker for the tip, that does the job. More comments below:
Another comment. Evidently Sage uses **Maxima** for
rational_simplify,
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:31:08 PM UTC-7, Paul-Olivier Dehaye wrote:
Again, in the big wave of emails, this one also got misdirected:
Hi everyone,
I am looking for people who want to help me, in one way or another, bring
hundreds of new first time contributors to sage. If I do not
It seems to me that the reproducibility should be with respect to the
same conditions as the original publication. That is, someone who says
I'm telling the truth because yada yada Sage version x.y.z on machine
q.p should provide not only the commands, but version x.y.z and
machine
consensus means unanimity, no?
So anyone can vote no and cancel the proposal?
I suspect not.
Some of it strikes me as ill-considered, but not disastrously so.
I followed it for a while but it became too repetitious.
RJF
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:55:37 PM UTC-7, jason wrote:
There has
of the P's is python...
RJF
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:43:12 AM UTC-7, Niles Johnson wrote:
I actually just have a minor complaint about the very last sentence. In
the last section you write
*Use overloading hacks to define a new infix operator like *dot*, as in
a well-known Python recipe
be off base.
RJF
On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:14:01 AM UTC-8, jason wrote:
On 3/2/14, 4:45, Harald Schilly wrote:
Second, functionalities are not discoverable. In Sage there is more
and more a trend to group top-level functions by a topic, e.g. someone
types graphs.[TAB] and the tab key
On Monday, March 3, 2014 10:24:57 AM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2014 10:48:47 AM UTC-5, rjf wrote:
I think there is poor usability of a menu that pops up like this -- where
the
menu changes depending upon the selection. When the menu is standardized
as in file-edit
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:34:51 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote:
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:31:56 AM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
The papers you can find from that search might change your mind. How
hard is it to say
sine of eks over cosine of eks equals tangent of x ?
sin(x/cos(x)) = tan(x
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:45:47 AM UTC-8, Harald Schilly wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:26 PM, rjf fat...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
So how does it stack up as
(a) user experience?
I have some contact with others teaching MMA, and what struck me when
watching the demo video
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 12:20:59 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote:
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:54:49 AM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
Can you read handwriting? Can you listen to audio input?
Are you talking about input methods for Stephen Hawking or input methods
that a able-bodied person might
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:53:06 PM UTC-8, jason wrote:
On 2/27/14 4:26 PM, rjf wrote:
So how does it stack up as
(a) user experience?
(b) programming environment?
For what it's worth, it took me a couple of hours to implement a live
camera widget:
http
how does it stack up as
(a) user experience?
(b) programming environment?
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr
I have mentioned that in another forum the issue of the naming of the
language was raised.
Wolfram actually had a competition of sorts, but ultimately his ego won,
and he just
named it Wolfram.
Here's what I wrote..
There are so many wonderful ideas from Stephen, and he explains how this
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:26:50 AM UTC-8, Chris Gorman wrote:
Does anyone have know who is working on improving the numerical methods in
Sage? I am beginning my graduate program in numerical analysis and would
like to use Sage for my work and research.
1. There are numerical
newspapers and books.
RJF
On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:56:54 AM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:37:27 PM UTC-5, rjf wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:17:23 PM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote:
So, in the Sage/GAP/etc. urban legend, some pathetic PhD student proves
a theorem
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:17:23 PM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote:
So, in the Sage/GAP/etc. urban legend, some pathetic PhD student proves a
theorem, and then upon graduating can't afford the software it's
implemented in.
Doesn't make sense to me.
Implement a theorem?
A theorem is a (true)
are in a position to deprecate certain (esp.
worst) features of its
constituents. It fails to do so in at least some cases I am aware of,
making good/bad/ugly available fairly indifferently.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group
criminal activity.
Eventually China might start respecting copyrights; after all there is
a Microsoft Research presence in Beijing. Someday.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:45:31 AM UTC-8, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:17:10 PM UTC-8, rjf wrote:
If the polynomial is multivariate, you need to specify the
quotient/remainder main variable.
I don't see it in the syntax you give below.
consider x+y
.
The chance that you will need group theory before you get to college (or
not go to college)
seems low.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel
101 - 200 of 603 matches
Mail list logo
