How can I define a polynomial boolean ring in 'a' in which it holds
that a+a=0 both cases: (1) when 'a' is an unknown parameter and (2)
when 'a=1'. Please see below:
sage: A.a = BooleanPolynomialRing(1)
sage: a
a
sage: A
Boolean PolynomialRing in a
sage: a+a
0
sage: a=1
sage: a+a
2- NOT ok: why is
this not 0?
because you just set a to the integer 1. Python and Sage are not strongly
typed, so you can assign any type to any variable and you just overwrote the
previous definition of a which was in the
you just overwrote the
previous definition of a which was in the boolean polynomial ring
Ok. Now I understand.
Try A(1)
for the constant 1 in A for which A(1) + A(1) holds.
Yes, this works for me.
Thanks!
On Jun 4, 1:06 pm, Martin Albrecht [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
sage: a=1
sage: a+a
Hi there,
this is my second call for help! does anybody know how to solve this
problem??? this problem have ocurred when I tried to upgrade SAGE:
The system: linux debian etch, AMD 64 X2 at 3GHz, 8 .GB RAM:
.
.
.
checking for C interface to BLAS... not found
checking for others BLAS... not found
This doesn't quite work. For some reason, while
x/y in set([(2*x)/(2*y)])
returns True,
x/y in set([(-2*x)/(-2*y)])
returns False! Is there another work-around?
Josh
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To
On Jun 4, 12:28 pm, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Josh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to add elements of the fraction field of QQ[x,y] to a set,
i.e., make sure there are no repeats. However, set.add()ing an
element that is equal to
On Jun 4, 4:37 pm, Eduardo Ocampo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
Hi Eduardo,
this is my second call for help!
When did you report this problem previously? I did not see it or maybe
I just don't remember.
does anybody know how to solve this
problem??? this problem have ocurred when
William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sage Enhancement Proposal: Change comparisons that involve
elements of the symbolic ring to return True or False if both sides
of the symbolic comparison are constants and the comparison can
be definitely determined.
I'm not sure what symbolic
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Andrey,
On Jun 4, 7:21 am, Andrey Novoseltsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is wrong with the code below and how to fix it?
I don't know what precisely is wrong with that code, but a very
similar code works.
First,
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 8:35 PM, mabshoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 4, 5:27 am, Timothy Clemans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Michael,
Hi Timothy,
I confirmed earlier what was reported. When one tries to sign up with
a username already taken the new user is still sent a confirmation
Hi again,
this seems to be more general of a problem than stated here below. It
appears as if data with types numpy.ndarray and numpy.float64 do not
mix well with types like RealNumber etc that are the sage default.
How do I ensure that everything I use are standard scipy numerical
types ? I
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Giovanni Samaey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi again,
this seems to be more general of a problem than stated here below. It
appears as if data with types numpy.ndarray and numpy.float64 do not
mix well with types like RealNumber etc that are the sage default.
waw, this is wonderful ! Thanks. Not only does everything work now,
but it also goes much faster !
Thanks for the quick reply and the wonderful package !
One question that I have now (but that isn't urgent): is there a
convenient way to perform parts of a notebook in python; and different
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Giovanni Samaey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
waw, this is wonderful ! Thanks. Not only does everything work now,
but it also goes much faster !
Thanks for the quick reply and the wonderful package !
One question that I have now (but that isn't urgent): is
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:23 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Giovanni Samaey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
waw, this is wonderful ! Thanks. Not only does everything work now,
but it also goes much faster !
Thanks for the quick reply and the wonderful
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Josh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This doesn't quite work. For some reason, while
x/y in set([(2*x)/(2*y)])
returns True,
x/y in set([(-2*x)/(-2*y)])
returns False! Is there another work-around?
-1 is a unit in ZZ, so gcd(-2*x,-2*y)=2, and
Hi,
I am trying to install Sage on Fedora, but although everything seemed
ok after runing the make, when I typed ./sage, I obtained the
following large error message:
++
On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:40 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sage Enhancement Proposal: Change comparisons that involve
elements of the symbolic ring to return True or False if both sides
of the symbolic comparison are constants and the comparison can
be
Hi,
You have SE linux enabled. Try disabling it.
William
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM, francisco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to install Sage on Fedora, but although everything seemed
ok after runing the make, when I typed ./sage, I obtained the
following large error
Thanks !
Giovanni
On Jun 4, 6:25 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:23 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Giovanni Samaey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
waw, this is wonderful ! Thanks. Not only does everything work
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:40 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sage Enhancement Proposal: Change comparisons that involve
elements of the symbolic ring to return True or False if both sides
of the symbolic comparison are constants and the
On Jun 4, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Of course, bool(some equation) returning False does not necessarily
mean
that the two expressions are not equal; it only means that we couldn't
prove them to be equal using some simple simplifications.
From the docstring for _nonzero_ from
On Jun 4, 4:16 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jun 4, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Of course, bool(some equation) returning False does not necessarily
mean
that the two expressions are not equal; it only means that we couldn't
prove them to be equal using some
On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
On Jun 4, 4:16 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jun 4, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Of course, bool(some equation) returning False does not necessarily
mean
that the two expressions are not equal; it only means that we
On Jun 4, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Gary Furnish wrote:
Errors should not under any circumstances be thrown if bool(x==y) is
inconclusive. It would break half of the code that depends on
symbolics, and would require try blocks around every if statement.
Can you give an example of something that
On Jun 4, 5:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In this thread:http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/
browse_thread/thread/bcdc671d2791056e/e086a9d59ff4b9ba
it seems that the consensus was to throw an error here; but nobody
ever implemented it (or even opened a trac
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
On Jun 4, 4:16 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jun 4, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Of course, bool(some equation) returning False does not necessarily
mean
that the two expressions are not
+1 to Rigerous testing of equality, but being able to rigorously
show if something is not equal is hard (and in many nontrivial cases
not possible). bool() should return true if it can be shown to be
equal
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Bradshaw
On Jun 4, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
On Jun 4, 5:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In this thread:http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/
browse_thread/thread/bcdc671d2791056e/e086a9d59ff4b9ba
it seems that the consensus was to throw an error here; but nobody
ever
How do you know for sure if something is not equal and that we are
just not lacking an advanced enough simplifier? For trivial cases
this will work and it will have to throw exceptions for everything
else.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Robert Bradshaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 4,
30 matches
Mail list logo
