oose today,
>> I would perhaps choose Julia. Not Python, it's much too slow. I don't know
>> for Lisp speed, but it's not a language I would choose anyway, I like to
>> write e.g. a+b*c when I do algebraic computations in my source code.
>> >>
>&g
I think you have to figure that there is a difference in productivity of
people who just learned Python in high school and would really like to
write a computer algebra system
versus people who know more mathematics, are comfortable spending 2 weeks
learning lisp, spending ?? (weeks? months?)
Just a suggestion: if you want to improve the speed of symbolic
mathematics as done by Maxima, and you are no longer insisting on the use
of Python, why not write in Lisp, and make Maxima faster?
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 6:58:10 AM UTC-8 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan
.
rootsof(g^2-4,g) is a way of notating {-2,2} in effect, in systems that
support something like rootsof. See how far you can push this. Can you
take log ( )?
RJF
On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:49:45 PM UTC-7, Samuel Lelievre wrote:
>
> 2020-08-05 18:59:01 UT
There are two square roots. In this (classic) integration example/bug, a
choice has
to be made. You know that 4 has two square roots, -2 and 2.
The integrand, which also can be rewritten as sqrt ( 4-4*cos(x/2)^2) ,
has 2 square roots.
Therefore there are two potential different values for
, on the fly) may not
work.
How to fix?
I've mentioned it previously, I assume. Represent the multiplicity of
answers. Sqrt(x^2) is a pair, {-x, x}. Log(r^2) is 2
log(r)+2*n*i*pi or something like that..
No one does it. A project for some student?
RJF
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:32:14 PM
complex variables.(source code defint.lisp, limit.lisp)
The original versions of the code were written by different people.
The assume() code was written by yet another.
RJF
.
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 5:10:56 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 9
newly generated symbols.
RJF
On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 3:48:19 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
> You only need domain: complex and assume(a>1) for it to crash, in fact.
>
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 12:45:39 AM UTC-4, Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, July 27, 20
In Maxima it works just fine,
it doesn't seem to be a Maxima problem. Though assume(t,real) is
meaningless,
and the syntax for maxima would be
integrate(t,t, 0, 4*a-a^2) not
integrate(t,0,4*a-a^2).
integrate doesn't care if the lower limit is less than the upper limit.
On Thursday, July
sider a robotic automated vehicle, being
approximately right might means it will only rarely crash
into a tree. Being right approximately means that it
will (always) drive to its destination, give-or-take a short displacement.
RJF
On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 6:51:15 PM UTC-7, Rocky Bernste
ndent bugs --
caused by common simplistic thinking, where
mathematics taught in high school is used as
the basis for manipulating more sophisticated
ideas.
Sorry to provide a bit more rain on your parade.
Have fun with the easy parts and see how far you
can get with the hard parts!
RJF
On Friday, Jul
You could take a look at what Albert Rich has done for testing Rubi in
different systems.
Also, the theorem proving people using Coq want to match up with CAS.
Also, the history of formalizing mathematics (Frege, Russell, etc) may
influence your thinking. Maybe discourage you; see the history of
ent for an undergrad
course in programming languages/ compiling.
RJF
On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 12:29:27 PM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
>>
>>
>> So one goal as briefly mentioned was to be able to wr
It looks like you have written a recursive descent parser. And a display.
If you were running Maxima on a Pi, (see sourceforge for download)
you would have a parser and a display without writing it yourself.
Just looking at the code briefly, I think you have to decide
if you actually meet your
implest interface is to invoke Maxima on some input
from a command line. If your task is simple enough.
RJF
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 3:49:18 PM UTC-7, Jonathan wrote:
>
> Although a good idea, I don't think I can make it simple enough to set up
> inside a data acquisition environmen
; )
eq1 : p*V = n*r*t ;
eq1/V;
returns p = (n*r*t)/V
RJF
On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 5:47:35 PM UTC-7, Samuel Lelievre wrote:
>
> Le samedi 23 mai 2020 02:14:58 UTC+2, Dima:
> >
> > Conda does have Sagemath available.
> > Not 100% sure how it works on Windows, though.
>
Consider the consequences to a parser when there are multiple forms
of what appear to be (say) "+" or "space" or "A" (is that a capital
alpha?)
..
Selecting Greek or other symbols from a palette might be cute. Freeform
input of unicode, probably a bag of worm
.
How does that seem?
Thinking about your suggestion of changing "solve", it could, of course
be done, but "solve" is such a general term that maybe it should be
broken down into other more specific commands. e.g.
something involving polynomial-systems and so on.
RJF
On
just curious when this ends. Python 4 awaits.
RJF
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 10:47:29 AM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-8, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, for the end user the major backwards-incompatib
afield from the presumed topic of this thread.
RJF
On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 7:54:47 PM UTC-8, Brent W. Baccala wrote:
>
>
> I know the Risch algorithm fairly well.
>
> I made two screencast videos describing how to use Axiom or Sage to
> simplify one of the integrals used
See, for example, Rubi, or my earlier project Tilu, for programs that
> absorbed,
in some sense learning from tables of integrals.
This is not classical machine learning, because the objects being learned
are
patterns. So the result for sin(x)dx works for sin(u)du, as a trivial
pattern
factor integers fast?
Indeed, outside of the 10^8 preset problems, it can't factor anything.
What do you think? Is this a fair comparison to the integration program?
RJF
On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 5:03:59 PM UTC-8, Richard_L wrote:
>
> I was unclear. Davis disagrees with Lample
oops, the review is by Davis; the paper is by Lample and Charton, both of
Facebook.
On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 4:21:07 PM UTC-8, rjf wrote:
>
> disagrees with me? or Emmanuel?
> Lample's abstract (of the review) concluded with
>
> The claim that this outperforms Mathemat
disagrees with me? or Emmanuel?
Lample's abstract (of the review) concluded with
The claim that this outperforms Mathematica on symbolic integration needs
to be very much qualified.
I glanced at the full review and I don't see that I disagree with it.
Generating 80 million randomly generated
with arctan is nicer that the explicit
radical stuff.
RJF
On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 7:28:40 PM UTC-8, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>
> Okay. That means that we need
>
>- a wrapper for RootSum, AND
>- a wrapper for Lambda.
>
> ISTR that Mathematica has a similar
ell) sympy or FriCAS/Axiom or ...
Can Sage "do it right" on top of one of these systems?
Maybe, but not without a correct design.
RJF
On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:23:45 PM UTC-8, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 11/29/19 7:41 PM, rjf wrote:
> >
> > Perspecti
ur college catalog and see if you can
do the homework problems using Sage.)
Sorry for being such a pessimist, but some of us have
been there.
Regards
RJF
On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 3:46:59 PM UTC-8, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 11/29/19 2:01 PM, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> &g
are still two
square roots. sqrt(9) has 2 values. Unless you want
to define sqrt as something else. Do you? How about log()
in the current example..
RJF
On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 2:15:55 PM UTC-8, rjf wrote:
>
> I just tried the problem in Maxima 5.40.0 ; the result is correc
I just tried the problem in Maxima 5.40.0 ; the result is correct as I
assume
Emmanuel also discovered. The "fix" suggested by the poster of Trac#28431
(to divert some class of integral problems to sympy) does not strike me
as plausible.
Maybe something about Sage parsing of a minus
Since Maxima is free and open source and gpl, why not just read the
algorithm implemented there
and rewrite it in Python?
RJF
\
On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 1:29:56 AM UTC-8, Emmanuel Charpentier
wrote:
>
> Dear Vincent,
>
> a very quick answer (limbic system level. :-
assumes internet
connected + email.
Of course it is also difficult to judge how many copies are
running because some people will continue to run an old
version, others will repeatedly load the system to get the
latest fixes ...
Good luck on trying to count "users" instead of c
n the
software being made available.
RJF
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:10:20 AM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
>
>
>>> Are you saying that FriCAS is the only CAS which doesn't do this?
>>>
>>
>> AFAICT, FriCAS dos this also...
>>
>> I don't think so - ar
because the "test" is not some
important standardized suite of integration problems.
It is just randomly generated. Maybe it would
be fair to call it noise? The author could post the
test suite, I suppose.
RJF
RJF
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:22:51 PM UTC-7, Emmanuel Char
I think that if you read the paper you would not expect it to compete with
a CAS
except on its made-up artificial testset.
RJF
On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:57:44 AM UTC-4, Martin R wrote:
>
> Actually, I think it would be even more interesting to compare with
> FriCAS, becau
pter, since that is not yet allowed, and the grader may take off points
from the homework because it is clear that the student did not do
the problem him/her self.)
RJF
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 4:24:10 AM UTC-7, mmarco wrote:
>
> I have been working a bit on some functions to help students d
and extendable.
RJF
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:48:09 AM UTC-7, Nisoli Isaia wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> I was planning in doing a Cython implementation of Forward automatic
> differentiation and
> Taylor arithmetics as in
> https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9488.html
> to use t
why not just use j, and tell sage that j^2=-1?
Depends on how much of Sage you
expect to understand this.
(the use of j is common in electrical engineering,
for those who have not encountered this before...)
RJF
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 1:39:51 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>
> Is thi
by having exponentials.
for example, e^x-1 factors many ways, one being (e^(x/2)-1)*(e^(x/2)+1).
RJF
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 12:30:42 PM UTC-7, Bill Page wrote:
>
> sage: sage.version.version
> '8.6'
> sage: ex=exp(2*x)+exp(-2*x); ex
> e^(2*x) + e^(-2*x)
> sage: factor(ex
It seems to me that this is an opportunity for you and your classmates to
post your project
to GitHub, where people interested in a simulation of Turing machines could
look at
yours in addition to the 63 others there. Whether it should also be posted
somewhere
in the world of Sage, it is not
alc may be a complication which I hope
people have thought about.
RJF
On Saturday, September 22, 2018 at 1:16:23 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> That's what this discussion and the wiki page are for, right? Are you
> suggesting or asking for something else?
>
>John
>
>
ordinates. "
are probably not so dense that they
couldn't be taught to use functional/prefix notation
so as to avoid conflict with programming language
syntax.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe f
with non-idiomatic and inefficient constructions that
might be detected/repaired.
It's your choice how to spend your time. Is it worth a try?
RJF
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:36:17 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> First we should add one of the plain old rule-based linters
r
results from Risch or other procedures.
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
If Sage calls Maxima, then it is a bug in Sage also.
Interestingly, Maxima gets the INdefinite integral correct.
On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10:31:36 PM UTC-7, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>
> Not Sage, it's Maxima:
> (%i2) integrate(sin(x)*exp(%i*x),x,-%pi,0);
>
There is a history of CAS providing strong mathematical typing as part of
the user interface, as in Sage. Those systems have been unpopular.
Axiom, FriCAS. Users tend to be mathematicians.
There is a history of pasting on formal mathematical typing on
other systems. Maple, and (I think)
series, in case this is not already
being used. e.g.
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~htk/publication/1978-jacm-brent-kung.pdf
RJF
On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 3:19:57 AM UTC-8, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I might introduce a non backward incompatible change for square root
py's
solve is perhaps another path.
RJF
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 1:36:10 AM UTC-8, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> This has been discussed earlier, but I was again asked about this:
>
> sage: solve(x*abs(x)==1, x)
> [x == (1/abs(x))]
> sage: solve([x*abs(x)==1, x==x], x
It would be helpful if the command line(s) sent to Maxima that resulted
in this message were posted, either here or on the Maxima newsgroup.
A Sage workbook
Without knowing what was attempted, I will nevertheless suggest
that executing the command
gcd:subres
may fix the problem.
>
--
You
even 2^n for
possibly negative n.
RJF
On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 3:24:20 AM UTC-8, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
>
> Le dimanche 12 novembre 2017 16:04:38 UTC+1, Eric Gourgoulhon a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Yes for sure, I will rewrite it using the expression tree
g feature in SNOBOL IV.
There is also a long history of people writing
programs based on a bad idea, poorly designed,
and destined to be discarded. I've done some of
that myself.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
atica, not Maple, has a larger
foothold in "scientific computing" establishments. Whether
this is an actual endorsement of the quality of the software
or a tribute to the dominance of physicists in national
laboratories or academia, or both, I cannot say.
RJF
On Wednesday, November 15
. This makes the whole enterprise somewhat
suspicious. Should you depend on this library? The fact that
you have ever even considering string representations furthermore
suggests you should do some further investigation of the
literature before plunging into writing code.
RJF
On Sunday
that transpose(transpose(A)) is
equal to A, knowing that A is nXm but where n, m are
unknown objects but assumed to be positive integers?
RJF
actually, not a fan of coffee :)
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:52:14 PM UTC-8, mforets wrote:
>
> Hello,
> also here's an op
I don't use Sage. I use Maxima.
What you propose sounds trivial and boring, at least to me.
If you want to figure out how to support block matrices and operations on
them,
that would be more of a challenge, and maybe of some use in the world
of linear algebra, proofs, and whatnot.
(
RJF
To the extent that Macsyma/Maximaand Scratchpad/Axiom/Fricas have
overlapping capabilities, it would be interesting to have a competent
assessment as to
which of them should be used by Sage for some functionalities.
RJF
On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 7:12:19 AM UTC-7, vdelecroix
involving a trusted virtual machine).
RJF
On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 6:21:28 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 4:35:38 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> On 2017-09-13 21:56, rjf wrote:
>> > Just because a package bui
Just because a package builds, loads, and passes some tests
doesn't mean that it also includes some security attack.
Does anyone care about / have any useful thoughts about /. that?
Sage includes Maxima and Lisp, which generally provides
access to system routines, for example.
RJF
rous times that relatively high speed
on polynomial problems of astronomical size may not be the
criterion for choosing a method and representation for most
users. But this is a fun target for making improvements.
RJF
On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 10:13:59 PM UTC-7, parisse wrote:
>
>
>
> L
I was doing timing on the same task and found that one system
(used for celestial mechanics) was spectacularly fast on a test just like
this one.
One reason was that it first changed f*(f+1) to
f^2 +f
and was clever in computing f^2. You should be clever
at this too.
Anyway, be careful when
cannot be done. If you say assume(sqrt(z)>0)
then maybe you have disambiguated something.
There are possibilities of carrying the sqrt() as a pair, <+b, -b>
throughout
a calculation, or using as a notation rootof(z^2-b, b) for an arbitrary
root.
It is possible to
s an inadequate step in whatever you
are trying to do,.
Good luck
RJF
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:37:47 AM UTC-7, Richard_L wrote:
>
> The following string sent to maxima causes a seg-fault and core dump:
>
> >
> /home/rllozes/sage-8.0/local/lib/python2.7/site-pack
maybe the right solution is to speed up sorting, perhaps by
a better comparison routine. Having a function whose
results differ from call to call is something to be avoided when
possible.
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:21:33 PM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> How attached are people to creating
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 11:50:00 PM UTC-7, parisse wrote:
>
> I think that people who never wrote symbolic integration algorithms
> underestimate the work required (this is also true in other areas, for
> example simplification, UI, etc.). I believe that the current symbolic
>
People have been working on computer programs for integration since about
1961. There are
at least 8 PhD theses on the topic.
If you think there is "low hanging fruit" like writing a better
simplification program, or
using binary search instead of pattern matching, or something else you
or both ends. Not that it has the value infinity
at an endpoint.
Sometimes doing math by computer ends up requiring subtleties.
RJF
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:53:33 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
> As it happens, in this case the underlying problem is that we send such
> unevaluated integral
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 4:38:41 AM UTC-7, Peleg Michaeli wrote:
>
> > you might simplify infinity-infinityto 0,
> Well, this is the wrong thing here... but sage is smarter than that, I
> believe.
>
>
>>> I truly doubt that. There are presumably many subsystems that can make
this
One other possibility for symbolic systems when the question when
the object in question cannot be simplified or evaluated, is to return
the unsimplified or unevaluated expression.
The simplest case might be something like
is (a>b) which, in the absence of any information
about the values of
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 2:11:41 AM UTC-8, Peleg Michaeli wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have two questions, one might be thought of as a bug report / feature
> request, please tell me what you think. Trying
> integrate(x, x, 0, infinity)
> raises ValueError: Integral is divergent.
>
> My first
a calculus + computer lab many years
ago (1973! at MIT), the students were more interested
in the Risch algorithm (simple version) than "regular"
stuff. Even today, calculus classes don't teach that, do they?
RJF
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 11:51:34 PM UTC-8, parisse wrote:
>
>
&
in 2014) was 3,500.
computer scientists, 25,600.
dental hygienist 200,500.
I have suggested to people that if they want to make money writing programs,
they should not have as a target audience "mathematicians".
Maybe they should pick some other occupation, e.g. dental hygienists.
RJF
-
I think that if *students *are using Sage to access the integration program
in Maxima, they could just
use Maxima.
If they are choosing an integration program based on speed,
they must have a very very old computer, since almost any student
problem is done instantly. By almost any program.
Maxima's version of Risch is about 13 pages of code, not counting some
material that may reside in other files having to do with finding
appropriate
algebraic or transcendental extensions. I suspect no one has looked at
it seriously in 40 years.
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 1:26:04 PM
ve studied.
Probably pursuing these kinds of problems would involve mostly
Maxima (and FriCAS if it is there) and maybe sympy; though that
last one may be wrong -- I don't follow sympy much.
RJF
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:10:49 AM UTC-8, parisse wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mard
Well known strategy for many tasks, probably never implemented.
Why?
1. The first algorithm in the list might not terminate, so no alternative
will be tried. (Serial processing...)
2. setting all alternatives going "in parallel" might work if you actually
can do that with hardware; on a
There are a whole bunch of issues raised in the context of bool(x>0) and
some mention of what
Maxima does, in that thread from 4 years ago.
But the description of what Maxima* actually does* was essentially missing
from the discussion.
As is often the case when several different conflicting
It might be comparing the real parts. What did you expect? Perhaps
Error "<" requires that both operands be members of the same ordered field
??
Or perhaps just
False
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 3:56:49 AM UTC-8, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am surprised by
> sage: bool(I
I'm neither a developer (except indirectly, I suppose, via fixes to Maxima)
nor a Sage user nor, for that matter,
a fan of Python. (I don't object to it, just don't use it). Nevertheless,
I'll throw my $0.02 in here.
Why not have a top-level menu that leads to
introduction to Sage for high
Don't bother posting it as an error unless you specify exactly which
version of Maxima and Lisp you are
testing, because it works just fine for me
in
Maxima 5.37.2 http://maxima.sourceforge.net
using Lisp SBCL 1.2.7
I get
(2*cos(a)*cos(b)-2*sin(a)*sin(b))*cos(x/2)
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 4:35:18 PM UTC-8, saad khalid wrote:
>
> You're certainly right. It was faster than mathematica implementation of
> q-digamma, so I assumed that it would be faster than any implementation
> that is open source.
>
That's not a very good assumption, I think.
On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 6:36:19 PM UTC-8, saad khalid wrote:
>
> Hello everyone!
>
> I'm interested in contributing/working on Sage a bit. Specifically, one of
> my Professor's came up with a faster way to compute q-digamma, at least in
> some cases. I would like to code it up and add
don't know what are the current combination of
algorithms and heuristics
for factoring in Maxima.
RJF
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 12:37:58 PM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 1:37:25 PM UTC-4, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On T
On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 10:33:42 PM UTC-7, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2016, rjf wrote:
>
> > If you think that there is a problem factoring a polynomial,present the
> polynomial.
> >
> > A report that something random happens with somethi
If you think that there is a problem factoring a polynomial,
present the polynomial.
A report that something random happens with something random
is not a useful bug report.
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:44:09 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> 5 variables and degree 100 is really, really
it right.
Or you could just call Maxima.
Good luck.
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 to
his. Nevertheless fun to read and
pick at his arguments. I don't know what the PRESS people think about
him, actually.)
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 fro
"symbolic mathematical equation
solving" for
a CAS.
RJF
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:50:31 AM UTC-7, tkosan wrote:
>
> Thierry wrote:
>
> > such a tool could be interesting. However, we are lacking concrete
> > examples on PRESS abilities. It would be nic
e to having massively over-promised and
> under-delivered. It got hyped like crazy by both academics and
> companies at certain points in the past.The term can -- in some
> cases -- cause some people who have been paying attention to CS
> research for a few decades (s
I think that calling this Artificial Intelligence is probably unhelpful
and arguably wrong.
But maybe you (and maybe the PRESS people) are calling rules + search +
evaluation
as AI?
Unless it has changed substantially from what I have seen in the
past,, PRESS is lacking in rigorous methods
for
If arg(x) is 0 and x is a number, then it is a real number. Maxima calls
this carg() for complex arg.
Carg will also work for some things that are not of numeric type, but
symbolic in some way.
.
Like sqrt(x^2+y^2) is real if domain=real
Good luck
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at
looks to me like you should use some kind of decision procedure that gets
the right answer.
Apparently you are using some part of maxima that does numerical
evaluation, which part is inappropriate for this use.
maybe
is(equal(sin(1+2^-200),sin(1)));
which returns true. Actually, I'd call that a
I just hope that William places a higher priority on food, rent, etc.
There are probably easier ways for him to make a lot of money..
If he succeeds he could buy food, pay rent,(etc) and donate to Sage, also.
See https://www.simonsfoundation.org/about-us/
for example.
>
--
You received
try to sell something that is GPL free.
Of course, I once again remind you, I am not a lawyer.
RJF
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:02:16 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
>
>
> http://ask.sagemath.org/question/34442/can-i-create-commercial-software-using-sagemath
>
>
> I put: &
again choose Python, knowing that there would be a requirement to
continually rewrite stuff
to be compatible with the latest version.
RJF
> Lets just look at strings, which is also one of the reasons driving the
> breaking change between Python 2 and 3. Back in the 90's it was ok to
rk against Python, in my
opinion.
What is your opinion? What part of the culture am I missing?
Given the occasional use of arithmetic in Sage, it would seem to be a issue
to
redefine "/" .
R
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 9:14:17 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 24,
a problem. But
there are 50-year-old programs in Maxima.
I think that if someone proposed a "new" CL standard, it would
have to be backward compatible.
RJF
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 5:22 PM, rjf <fat...@gmail.com >
> w
And then, in a few years Python 4?
Perhaps there is a lesson here?
RJF
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 6:33:36 AM UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We recently did a survey with a question about why people choose (or
> would choose) something else instead of Sage. There are def
uot; where +-infinity sits?
or would that place be "undefined"?
or you might want something like Mathematica's DirectedInfinity.
Comments on that (draft) paper above are welcome.
RJF
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:53:33 PM UTC-7, john_perry_usm wrote:
>
> I should elabora
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:34:38 AM UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:30 AM, rjf <fat...@gmail.com >
> wrote:
> > So you should claim authorship and copyright, and then declare that
> others
> > may
> > use it under whatever restri
The point is, if you don't claim authorship, someone else might, and (for
example)
restrict access, even by you.
So you should claim authorship and copyright, and then declare that others
may
use it under whatever restrictions you determine. Personally, I find the
MIT or
Berkeley licenses
lementary
function library".
Another example of words changing meaning ... "hacker" meant someone
who cleverly used programs (or devices) for purposes other than what
was initially intended. Often amusing. Now it seems to be used
with negative connotation ( hacker == cyber-crim
1 - 100 of 603 matches
Mail list logo
