. Although you can evaluate f(5,6) you cannot do
f(mp.convert(5),mp.convert(6))
as Sage cannot do
x-mp.convert(5)
HTH
Alastair Irving
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-support group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
tivision, that is p[1]/p[0]
is evaluating to 0, hence the comparison is correct.
Alastair Irving
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-support group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send
On 12/09/2012 15:14, P Purkayastha wrote:
Can anyone point out what is wrong with this comparison:
sage: 0.2 + 0.1 == 0.3
False
It seems baffling that something as simple as this returns False.
Its a fairly common problem with doing arithmetic with floatingpoint
numbers as they are only
a Polyhedron object to store
the region of interest is there any way of getting functions from it
which describe the limits of integration? Ideally, if P is a Polyhedron
it would be nice to have something like P.integral(f) which computes the
integral of f over P.
Many thanks
Alastair Irving
On 25/04/2012 16:45, Graham Gerrard wrote:
Finding occasional inconsistencies when using matrices with cyclotomic
entries, though works well most of the time...
sage: s=CyclotomicField(24,'s').gen()
sage: (8*s^6-1)^10
-1098715216*s^6 - 372960063
sage: xb=matrix(1,1,[8*s^6-1])
sage: xb^10
On 09/04/2012 21:02, Kent Morrison wrote:
In this snippet of Sage code I believe that pos is [1,2,3]. But mod(1,p)
in pos evaluates to False, while mod(1,p) in [1,2,3] evaluates to True.
However 1%p in pos and 1%p in [1,2,3] both evaluate to True.
This behaviour can be understood by using the
Hi
If you do
A.determinant(algorithm=DF)
it is much much faster.
Alastair
On 02/03/2012 14:21, firebird wrote:
Wrong conclusion in previous txn! The problem is with the matrix
routines and not with the Cyclotomics.
Wrote a couple of routines based on simple Gauss Seidel techniques
On 29/02/2012 19:54, firebird wrote:
I am having performance problems when using SAGE matrices with
Cyclotomic Fields. Processing in GAP appears almost instant, whereas
the similar computation takes of the order of a minute in SAGE. Am I
missing something?
Sage:
F.s=CyclotomicField(29)
m=[]
Hi
If you're using a Sage Notebook on a server then Image Magik needs to be
installed on that server, not on your local Windows machine.
HTH
Alastair
On 12/01/2012 14:36, LFS wrote:
Sorry Dan - I know how to click on download and then double-click on
a setup.exe file. I am math, not
On 08/11/2011 16:52, Chappman wrote:
Hi folks,
When I try and do to two arguments in the same lines in sagemath it
does not compute, this is what I have written:
if A==1 and D==1 then case- 1 else
if A==2 and D==1 then case- 2
Hi
This is not the correct syntax for an if statement in
On 30/08/11 14:59, MathLynx wrote:
(1) How does one define a field of rational functions in several
variables? QQ[x,y] gives me the ring of polynomials in x y over QQ,
but 2*x/y is not in this ring.
R.x,y=PolynomialRing(QQ)
K=R.fraction_field()
HTH
Alastair
--
To post to this group, send
On 19/08/2011 18:57, Sucharit wrote:
I am using Sage to compute homologies of large chain complexes. For
this, I need to compute kernels of matrices over GF(2).
The attached file testmatrix.sage contains the 128 X 120 matrix that I
started with. The first command loads the file. The second
On 28/07/2011 22:34, VictorMiller wrote:
I want to do a lot of finite field computations, and want to use
Cython to speed things up. It's not clear to me what the details are
that I need to adhere to. I noticed from the comments in
element_givaro.pyx that the givaro library is fastest from
On 14/06/2011 21:58, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
On 14 juin, 08:44, Simon Kingsimon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Since sage-nt seems to agree that it is a bug, I opened trac ticket
#11474.
Good !
About the original memleak, I tried looking at how
EllipticCurves_finite_field (maybe not correct name)
Hi
I've got a .sage file that I want to compile using Cython. If I just
copy it to a .spyx file and do load myfile.spyx then the sage
preparser is not called on the file. What's the simplest way of calling
the preparser before compiling?
Many thanks
Alastair Irving
--
To post
On 27/03/2011 02:32, Marshall Hampton wrote:
If p is your Polyhedron, you can use p.lrs_volume() to get the volume,
but this requires the optional lrs package to be installed. It should
be very easy to install lrs, just do sage -i lrs (or path/to/sage/
sage -i lrs if sage is not in your path).
On 26/03/2011 08:52, clodemil wrote:
Alastair,
Thanks a lot.
the Pytonic way:
def Ppulse(mesures):
return [N((l[0]-l[1]),12) for l in mesures]
works(I shall need to understand/study why!!)
Its a list comprehension.
The other solution:
def Ppulse(mesures):
result=[]
for k,l
Hi
I've created a polyhedron with the Polyhedron function. Is there any
way I can find its volume?What about its surface area?
Many thanks
Alastair
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
On 25/03/2011 13:15, clodemil wrote:
Hi all,
Here is a list:
mesures=[[172,91,57],[181,88,58],[146,88,56],[191,85,59],[171,92,50],
[157,93,55],[180,84,48],[142,77,60],[169,80,45],[162,76,59],
[167,104,73],[166,81,53],[145,78,59],[163,98,58],[192,90,50],
[184,85,60],[151,77,56]]
# [[P
HI All
I'm running Sage 4.6.2. I've just noticed that if I evaluate various
symbolic expressions which return 0 then the 0 returned is a python int,
rather than a Sage integer. examples of such expressions are sin(0),
tan(0), ln(0).
Is there a reason for this or is it a bug?
Best wishes
On 21/03/2011 16:24, kcrisman wrote:
This is important to fix, because some Sage code depends on the input
in integer form being Sage integer or something else with Sage
methods, not a Python int, and one could imagine someone relying on
this and getting a nasty exception.
exactly what
Hi All
I was wondering if sage implements any algorithm for counting the number
of points with integer coordinates inside polyhedra with rational
coordinates. even such an algorithm for polygons would be useful for me.
Best wishes
Alastair
--
To post to this group, send email to
On 28/02/2011 13:19, D. S. McNeil wrote:
I was wondering if sage implements any algorithm for counting the number of
points with integer coordinates inside polyhedra with rational coordinates.
even such an algorithm for polygons would be useful for me.
Have a look at the integral_points
On 13/09/2010 20:01, Nick wrote:
Hello!
I have a computation running in Sage. It is a search of more or less
the following form:
Let S be an empty set.
For i in some interval:
Check some property for i
If i satisfies the property:
add i to the set S.
I now realise I should have said print i
On 13/09/2010 17:31, Håkan Granath wrote:
In certain cases I get nothing from the continued_fraction function
in the latest Sage version:
--
| Sage Version 4.5.3, Release Date: 2010-09-04 |
| Type
to be differentiable
everywhere, which the l1 norm isn't.
Are there any packages that provide the functionality I'm looking for?
If not can my current method be improved upon?
Many thanks
Alastair Irving
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from
documentation for it so don't really know what I'm doing. In
particular how can I construct all the groups of a given order using the
database?
Many thanks
Alastair Irving
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage
27 matches
Mail list logo
