I believe I was using R1 = singular.ring(0, '(x,y)', 'dp') - which I
tried again from a new session at work and it works without
complaint. I'll try to see what I was doing at home that was causing
the trouble; thanks for all the help and clarification.
On May 21, 10:54 am, Martin Albrecht
Lie requires curses to build, and evidently that isn't installed into
sage-vmware.
Login via manage (at the login prompt) and type
sudo apt-get install libncurses5-dev
then
sudo sage -i lie-2.2.2.p1
and it will work.
In the future SAGE-vmware will include libncurses.
To use lie, start the
John,
What William wrote will work, but I'm very curious what people actually want
to do with the calculus software. If you give me some specifics on what you
want to do, I'll work on adding it to SAGE natively, so that you're not
forced to use Maxima.
~Bobby
On 5/20/07, William Stein [EMAIL
I, for one, would like surface plots, even if it is slow, using openmath
or matplotlib (which SAGE has already). Is there a reason we can't do that?
Bobby Moretti wrote:
John,
What William wrote will work, but I'm very curious what people actually
want to do with the calculus software. If
How can I get sage to print the numeric value of an expression such
as, cos(3)?
Also is there a way to switch between 'radian' and 'degree' modes like
in some calculators?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
Brian Harris wrote:
How can I get sage to print the numeric value of an expression such
as, cos(3)?
sage: cos(3)
cos(3)
sage: RR(cos(3))
-0.989992496600445
Also is there a way to switch between 'radian' and 'degree' modes like
in some calculators?
Everything is in radians. To compute
Fair enough. A previous discussion led me to believe the goal was for
more transparent rings. Have you considered supporting something like
the following?
cos(3).toreal()
On May 21, 9:12 pm, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Harris wrote:
How can I get sage to print the numeric
On May 21, 7:24 pm, Yi Qiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 21, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Brian Harris wrote:
Fair enough. A previous discussion led me to believe the goal was for
more transparent rings. Have you considered supporting something like
the following?
cos(3).toreal()
There
On 5/21/07, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/07, Yi Qiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 21, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Brian Harris wrote:
Fair enough. A previous discussion led me to believe the goal was for
more transparent rings. Have you considered supporting something like
