Dear all,
Thanks a lot for your help. It looks like there is yet another useful
function going to be implemented in sage. Just to give an example
where quad is faster than GSL (sorry for the length):
sage: def insol1(epsilon,ecc,varpi,phi,lambd):
... S0=1368
... phirad=phi*pi/180.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Stan Schymanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to evaluate a symbolic equation containing an integral
numerically:
((integrate(250*cos(pi*x/180)^1.8 + 170.35,x,0,18)/a_v)(a_v=1)).n()
does not work. Is there a way of doing this? The real
On Dec 4, 2:04 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sage: f.n()
and get back a floating point number. This is surprisingly not
implemented in Sage, but it isn't.
(That's basically because Maxima itself doesn't seem to have such
functionality.)
I'm guessing that f.n() just turns on
Robert Dodier wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:04 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sage: f.n()
and get back a floating point number. This is surprisingly not
implemented in Sage, but it isn't.
(That's basically because Maxima itself doesn't seem to have such
functionality.)
I'm guessing
On Dec 4, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Robert Dodier wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:04 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sage: f.n()
and get back a floating point number. This is surprisingly not
implemented in Sage, but it isn't.
(That's basically because Maxima itself doesn't seem
Tim Lahey wrote:
Jason
Is there an easy way to get the integrand, variable and bounds out of the
integral? That way, if one has tried to analytically evaluate it, they
can pull it out and try numerically evaluating it easily. In fact, it
probably could be done automatically.
sage:
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Tim Lahey wrote:
Jason
Is there an easy way to get the integrand, variable and bounds out
of the
integral? That way, if one has tried to analytically evaluate it,
they
can pull it out and try numerically evaluating it easily. In fact,
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Tim Lahey wrote:
Jason
Is there an easy way to get the integrand, variable and bounds out of the
integral? That way, if one has tried to analytically evaluate it, they
can
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:14 PM, William Stein wrote:
It would be better to call the numerical_integral function
that is already in Sage, which Josh Kantor wrote, which
is pretty sophisticated. It uses GSL and a C callback function.
Then improve the implementation of that function to also use
William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Tim Lahey wrote:
Jason
Is there an easy way to get the integrand, variable and bounds out of the
integral? That way, if one has tried to analytically
Tim Lahey wrote:
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:14 PM, William Stein wrote:
It would be better to call the numerical_integral function
that is already in Sage, which Josh Kantor wrote, which
is pretty sophisticated. It uses GSL and a C callback function.
Then improve the implementation of that
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Tim Lahey wrote:
Jason
Is there an easy way to get the integrand, variable and
William Stein wrote:
Should we phase GSL out of numerical_integral too? Should we replace it
with the equivalent scipy call (which would make it massively shorter
and simpler)?
Yes, it is very tempting to do so. One thing is that each function
evaluation
could in theory be much faster
13 matches
Mail list logo
