On 2013-07-19, Jesús Torrado wrote:
> sage: maxima('spherical_bessel_j(50,9.5)')
> 18.003620332195756l-33
> sage: spherical_bessel_J(50,9.5, algorithm=3D"maxima") # default algori=
> thm
> 18.0036203322*l - 33
Common Lisp allows four float types -- short, single, double, and lon
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:42:01 AM UTC-7, chexmix wrote:
> Hi --
>
> I b0rked the Sage install on my netbook by somehow bungling upgrade(), so
> decided to reinstall from source (I run Linux, but it's neither Red Hat-based
> nor Debian/Ubuntu-oid ... it's Slackware).
>
> For the first time
I tried a lot of different things but was not able to do any better. I
ended up just implementing my program using a different algorithm. It
doesnt seem to be working in all cases yet, but its 2x faster than the old
program in the cases its producing the same answer as the old program, and
i ha
Thanks for your reply! This morning I got a error message, but now
http://trac.sagemath.org/report/33 it is visible again.
Op vrijdag 19 juli 2013 10:25:00 UTC+2 schreef P Purkayastha het volgende:
>
> On 07/19/2013 02:53 PM, Rolandb wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since mid 2007 I use Sage and often I
After some investigation, I can think of two possible solutions:
1. Changing the code of "spherical_bessel_J" in sage/functions/special.py
from
return meval("spherical_bessel_j(%s,%s)"%(ZZ(n),var))
to
return meval("float(spherical_bessel_j(%s,%s))"%(ZZ(n),var))
2. Change the return value of Ma
More info on the wrong evaluation from Maxima:
This seems to be happening when the second argument of spherical_bessel_J
is an RR, but not if it is in ZZ o QQ.
On Friday, July 19, 2013 12:18:51 PM UTC+2, Jesús Torrado wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> Have a look at the second line:
>
> sage: maxima
Hi there,
Have a look at the second line:
sage: maxima('spherical_bessel_j(50,9.5)')
18.003620332195756l-33
sage: spherical_bessel_J(50,9.5, algorithm="maxima") # default algorithm
18.0036203322*l - 33
sage: spherical_bessel_J(50, 9.5, algorithm="scipy")
1.800362033219550
Hi!
On 2013-07-14, broken_symlink wrote:
> I have something that is passing the tests. I thought I would be able to do
> better by getting rid of the two for loops and using list comprehensions.
> But, according to kernprof all I managed to do was make things worse.
Anyway, if at some point y
On 07/19/2013 02:53 PM, Rolandb wrote:
Hi,
Since mid 2007 I use Sage and often I look at Trac to learn about new
and handy routines / tricks. But Trac has changed
(http://trac.sagemath.org/report/33) :(
How can non-developers (as me) view the new Trac?
Roland
Are you asking whether it is vie
