sage: var("a, b, c") (a, b, c) sage: foo=(a-b)*(b-c) ; foo (a - b)*(b - c)
Note that :
sage: foo.expand() a*b - b^2 - a*c + b*c
>From foo.list? :
Docstring: Return the coefficients of this symbolic expression as a
polynomial in x. INPUT: * "x" -- optional variable. OUTPUT: A list of
expressio
```
sage: var("a, b, c")
(a, b, c)
sage: foo=(a-b)*(b-c) ; foo
(a - b)*(b - c)
```
Note that :
```
sage: foo.expand()
a*b - b^2 - a*c + b*c
```
>From `foo.list?` :
```
Docstring:
Return the coefficients of this symbolic expression as a polynomial
in x.
INPUT:
* "x" -- optiona
FWIW :
sage: var("a, b, c") (a, b, c) sage: ((a-b)*(b-c)) (a - b)*(b - c) sage:
((a-b)*(b-c)).list() [-b^2 + b*c, b - c] sage: ((a-b)*(b-c)).operands() [a
- b, b - c]
HTH,
Le lundi 23 octobre 2023 à 18:23:32 UTC+2, Rolandb a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I am surprised by the output (9.8 and 10.1 Ubu
Hi Roland,
On 1 Mai, 12:08, Rolandb wrote:
> sage: R.=QQ[]
> sage: list((A^2+B).factor()+(B^2).factor())
> [(1, A^2), (1, B^2), (1, B)]
> sage: list((A^2+B).factor())+list((B^2).factor())
> [(A^2 + B, 1), (B, 2)]
>
> Is the first result what I could (should) expect?
> (tested via KAIST, version 4
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:39 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:01 pm, Alex Raichev wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>> I get differently formatted answers using factor() multiple times on
>> the same polynomial. I wouldn't call it a bug, but it sure is
>> annoying when doctesting.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> -
On Dec 19, 7:01 pm, Alex Raichev wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I get differently formatted answers using factor() multiple times on
> the same polynomial. I wouldn't call it a bug, but it sure is
> annoying when doctesting.
>
> Alex
>
> -
Hi William,
On Jun 18, 12:14 pm, William Stein wrote:
...
> You can also do
>
> sage: R. = ZZ[]
>
> which doesn't look like a double definition. That's what I usually do.
Sure. But when you see Mikie's post from June 17, this is what he did.
The only problem was (as pointed out by other people
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, William Stein wrote:
>> 2009/6/17 Robert Bradshaw :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:05 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> >> I think is is easier, both on the eye and for a beginner to
>> >> understand:
>>
>> >> sage
On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, William Stein wrote:
> 2009/6/17 Robert Bradshaw :
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:05 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> >> I think is is easier, both on the eye and for a beginner to
> >> understand:
>
> >> sage: x = polygen(ZZ)
> >> sage: f = 2*x**2 - x
> >> sage: f.factor()
> >>
2009/6/17 Robert Bradshaw :
>
> On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:05 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
>> I think is is easier, both on the eye and for a beginner to
>> understand:
>>
>> sage: x = polygen(ZZ)
>> sage: f = 2*x**2 - x
>> sage: f.factor()
>> x * (2*x - 1)
>
> Perhaps. I like the R[var] notation because
On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:05 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> I think is is easier, both on the eye and for a beginner to
> understand:
>
> sage: x = polygen(ZZ)
> sage: f = 2*x**2 - x
> sage: f.factor()
> x * (2*x - 1)
Perhaps. I like the R[var] notation because it's a direct translation
of the mathemat
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2009, at 7:05 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
>>
>> I think is is easier, both on the eye and for a beginner to
>> understand:
>>
>> sage: x = polygen(ZZ)
>> sage: f = 2*x**2 - x
>> sage: f.factor()
>> x * (2*x - 1)
>>
>> The effect of t
On Jun 17, 2009, at 7:05 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> I think is is easier, both on the eye and for a beginner to
> understand:
>
> sage: x = polygen(ZZ)
> sage: f = 2*x**2 - x
> sage: f.factor()
> x * (2*x - 1)
>
> The effect of the first line is that polynomials in x are elements of
> the polyn
I think is is easier, both on the eye and for a beginner to
understand:
sage: x = polygen(ZZ)
sage: f = 2*x**2 - x
sage: f.factor()
x * (2*x - 1)
The effect of the first line is that polynomials in x are elements of
the polynomial ring with integer coefficients. Note the difference
when we swit
On Jun 16, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Mikie wrote:
>
> Yes, and as you can see it works great in sage command line. When I
> use it in a python script I get a syntax error for the period in
> R..
>
Clearly you are not using the preparser. What you could do is
x = QQ['x'].gen(0)
f = 2*x**2 - x
f.factor(
Yes, and as you can see it works great in sage command line. When I
use it in a python script I get a syntax error for the period in
R..
On Jun 16, 12:30 pm, David Joyner wrote:
> Is this what you mean?
>
> sage: R. = PolynomialRing(ZZ,"x")
> sage: f = 2*x**2-x
> sage: f.factor()
> x * (2*x - 1
Is this what you mean?
sage: R. = PolynomialRing(ZZ,"x")
sage: f = 2*x**2-x
sage: f.factor()
x * (2*x - 1)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Mikie wrote:
>
> When I use Sage to factor lets say 2*x**2-x it factors the 2 out and
> leaves a fraction in the expression. I would like to have it no
When I use Sage to factor lets say 2*x**2-x it factors the 2 out and
leaves a fraction in the expression. I would like to have it not
factor the polynomial unless their is an integer factor. By the way I
have created a Twisted API that works.
On Jun 15, 4:51 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Mikie wrote:
>
> Is there anyway to get the factor function to factor an expression
> without using QQ['x'].0? I want just integer factors.
I don't understand what you mean by "integer factors"? Can you give an example?
> I have created a Twisted server using
19 matches
Mail list logo
