When from sage.calculus.calculus import * is executed, the default
var() function from sage.calculus.var (L4) gets replaced by another
one from sage.symbolic.ring (L506).
There is indeed an import made in sage.calculus.calculus (L370).
However, the behavior of var() changes afterward because
Its not well documented, unfortunately. I learned about from another
developer (Jason Grout, I think). The patch creating it went in a
while ago:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6447
and I think they intended to add better documentation but no one did.
In the next year or so
More explicitly:
sage: var('y')
y
sage: type(y)
type 'sage.symbolic.expression.Expression'
sage: from sage.calculus.calculus import *
sage: var('z')
z
sage: type(z)
---
snip
NameError: name 'z' is not defined
Huh. Can I ask
I have no real idea what is going wrong there - I've never used Gentoo
and I suspect it must be something to do with its infrastructure. But
one idea would be to retry with gcc 4.5.2; my impression is that there
are some significant improvements between the 4.4 and 4.5 series.
You might also
Hi,
Huh. Can I ask where one would import * from sage.calculus.calculus?
In my badly written code.
I wanted to call symbolic_sum which is not reachable by default,
rather than sum when doing some tests.
Cheers,
JP
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To
On Jan 18, 11:03 am, Jean-Pierre Flori jpfl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Huh. Can I ask where one would import * from sage.calculus.calculus?
In my badly written code.
I wanted to call symbolic_sum which is not reachable by default,
rather than sum when doing some tests.
I see. Why not
I see. Why not just import that one function, in that case? That is
a very natural thing to do. Only import a whole namespace if you
really have to - it can really mess things up, as you have pointed
out.
I'm aware of that, that piece of code was stupid because I was lazy
when I wrote that.
Hi tvn,
Am Montag, den 17.01.2011, 14:22 -0800 schrieb tvn:
I try to solve for 3 variables x y z with 3 equations as below ,
I am expecting something like z = r1, x = -r1, y = -2*r1 but instead
get x = y = z = 0 (which trivially valid though not expected). Is
this because the numbers
Hello everybody
I am just looking at sketching graphs and I came across a problem that
has me stumped. The graph I am trying to sketch is
(x-3) / ( (x+1) * (x-2) )
now I have plotted the graph in sage on my TI-83 and at wolfram and
they all different. Now I am thinking is sage right and the
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Harris
mail.dhar...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello everybody
I am just looking at sketching graphs and I came across a problem that
has me stumped. The graph I am trying to sketch is
(x-3) / ( (x+1) * (x-2) )
now I have plotted the graph in sage on my
On Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:19:58 AM UTC-7, einek wrote:
Hi tvn,
Am Montag, den 17.01.2011, 14:22 -0800 schrieb tvn:
I try to solve for 3 variables x y z with 3 equations as below ,
I am expecting something like z = r1, x = -r1, y = -2*r1 but instead
get x = y = z = 0 (which
Thus (0,0,0) is the unique solution of your system.
Uh... not quite 'Thus'. The system in fact has an infinite number of
unique solutions, as the original poster pointed out. Though I don't
know why sage converges on [0,0,0]. Also just because a second sage
method gives the same result as the
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Harris
mail.dhar...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello everybody
I am just looking at sketching graphs and I came across a problem that
has me stumped. The graph I am
Hello,
sage: A = matrix([[1, 0.106, 1.212], [3.8759765625, 0.04801171875,
: 3.972], [3.0625, 0.09325, 3.249]])
sage: A.rank()
3
sage: A.det()
0.000
Though sage computes the rank to be 3, the determinant is negligible.
Mathematica says the rank of this matrix is 2, and that its
In the following I expected the line $y=x$ in red for q; and the line
$y=-x$ in yellow for p. The plot for p is as desired, but the plot
for q contains also the line $y=-x$. This is using sage 4.6.1
#Is this a bug?
x,y=var('x y')
q=implicit_plot((x-y)/(x+y)==0,(x,-2,2),(y,-2,2),color='red')
On Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:19:58 AM UTC-7, einek wrote:
Hi tvn,
Am Montag, den 17.01.2011, 14:22 -0800 schrieb tvn:
I try to solve for 3 variables x y z with 3 equations as below ,
I am expecting something like z = r1, x = -r1, y = -2*r1 but instead
get x = y = z = 0 (which
Are you using the gentoo ebuild or are you installing just the Sage source
tarball? The latter is designed to be installed in a users home directory.
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
On Jan 18, 6:07 pm, Daniel Harris mail.dhar...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Harris
mail.dhar...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello everybody
I am just looking at
Here is a minimal example (implicit_plot does this, essentially):
sage: contour_plot(x/y==0,(x,-1,1),(y,-1,1), plot_points=150,
contours=(0,0), fill=False, cmap=[blue])
So the real question is why p *doesn't* have the 'wrong' line!
sage: C = contour_plot(x/y==0,(x,-1,1),(y,-1,1),plot_points=4,
I am NOT using the ebuild.
I just downloaded sage-4.6.1.tar, created a /usr/local/sage-4.6.1
directory, chowned that directory to my user, un-tared it, executed
'export MAKE=make -j12' then 'make make.out 21' and then a few
hours later tried to run it with './sage'. I'll try compiling it in
Thanks for the reply. I think I'll try to re-post on sage-devel.
(Although gcc-4.5.2 is in Gentoo's portage it is not in the 'stable'
branch yet. So I don't really know if I want to 'upgrade' gcc yet.)
On 01/18/2011 07:08 AM, Marshall Hampton wrote:
I have no real idea what is going wrong
The error looks like it didn't build correctly. Is there anything suspicious
in the install.log? Maybe rebuild the sage library (sage -ba).
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Hello all,
Running into an issue with something. I must be missing something. Say I
construct two groups that I know are isomorphic.
sage: G = SymmetricGroup(5)
sage: r = G('(1,2,5,4,3)')
sage: s = G('(1,5),(3,4)')
sage: H = G.subgroup([r,s])
sage: H
Subgroup of SymmetricGroup(5)
Ignore. I was stupid. Sorry for wasting bits.
--
D. M. Monarres
dmmonar...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM, D. M. Monarres dmmonar...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello all,
Running into an issue with something. I must be missing something. Say I
construct two groups that I know are
On Jan 18, 7:30 pm, D. M. Monarres dmmonar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Running into an issue with something. I must be missing something. Say I
construct two groups that I know are isomorphic.
sage: G = SymmetricGroup(5)
sage: r = G('(1,2,5,4,3)')
sage: s = G('(1,5),(3,4)')
Thanks for the other command. I am writing a tutorial for my university and
am running into quite a few of these little gotcha's with these sort of
things.
--
D. M. Monarres
dmmonar...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:28 PM, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.comwrote:
On Jan 18, 7:30 pm,
26 matches
Mail list logo
