[sage-support] Re: Reconstructing a symbolic expression with derivative from the string representation

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:49:11 PM UTC-8, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > Yes, there is no symbolic diff function and so it does not appear > in the dictionary for translating strings to expressions. It has other > consequences too so I consider writing a dummy function like > Function_sum a

[sage-support] Re: Reconstructing a symbolic expression with derivative from the string representation

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 7:11:50 PM UTC+1, Nils Bruin wrote: > > Clearly, SR('diff(...)') operates in a scope where "diff" isn't bound to > the toplevel "diff". > Yes, there is no symbolic diff function and so it does not appear in the dictionary for translating strings to expressions.

[sage-support] Re: integrate problem (bug?)

This is fixed in Sage 7.6.beta2: ┌┐ │ SageMath version 7.6.beta2, Release Date: 2017-02-01 │ │ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface.│ │ Type "help()" for help.

[sage-support] integrate problem (bug?)

Hi. I seem to be getting zero for a divergent integral: SageMath % ./sage ┌┐ │ SageMath version 7.5.1, Release Date: 2017-01-15 │ │ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface.│ │ Type

[sage-support] Reconstructing a symbolic expression with derivative from the string representation

Hi, I am puzzled by the following code in sage 7.5: sage: df = diff(function('f')(x), x); df diff(f(x), x) sage: repr(df) 'diff(f(x), x)' sage: df1 = SR(repr(df)); df1 diff(f(x), x) df and df1 look the same and we even have sage: bool(df1 == df) True However, they are not identical: sage:

[sage-support] Re: Ssh problems

Hi Dima, On 2017-02-21, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > first of all, put your (new?) ssh key to trac, and also to github, if you > have an account there. For *cloning*? Sure, I need it for pushing. But I don't think I have ever made Sage aware of my github account (not sure if I

[sage-support] Re: Ssh problems

Hi Eric, On 2017-02-21, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > What about > git clone https://github.com/sagemath/sage.git > (note the change "git:" --> "https:") > Does it work better for you ? Thank you! That seems to do the trick. So, should the development mantual be changed

Re: [sage-support] Silly Cython question

On 21 February 2017 at 22:02, Watson Ladd wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 1:07:43 PM UTC-8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> On 2017-02-21 22:02, Watson Ladd wrote: >> > I am having trouble figuring out which imports I need to get the >> > right names to appear >>

[sage-support] Re: splitting field vs. Galois closure

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 10:14:32 AM UTC+1, Marc Mezzarobba wrote: > > Simon King wrote: > > Wouldn't it be better to [...] or change the > > arithmetic operations by *avoiding* a call to __init__()? > > That's what the branch I pointed to tries to do, to some extent at > least. But the

[sage-support] Re: Patterson Algorithm

Hi Panos The snippet you gave certainly does not work since it will compute the gcd of 1 and something else, which is - of course - 1. What you need is to compute the *half gcd* of R and g, i.e. run the Extended Euclidean algorithm about half-way and then stop. The Bezout relation from that

Re: [sage-support] Re: Lattice reduction over polynomial lattice

Indeed, Sage has row_reduced_form for a polynomial matrix. The row reduced form is sufficient to find a vector in the row space which has minimal degree. The method used to be called weak_popov_form, but that form is slightly stronger and the algorithm does not compute it. Hence the warning.