Hi,
I tried solving a non-linear system to be able to get a plot of g against L as
defined in the code below, I have used the solve command but failed and now I
tried the find_root command, the below is the code and the first five result
for E=0, but the other results are functions of L and
This debate has been going on for as long as computers have been in
existence. Yes, there is a case to be made the odd roots of negative
reals should return a negative real instead of the principal complex
root. But that leads to more subtle problems in other places. If all
of mathematica,
2.5.1 for sure that work. I has using 2.5.2 (that works fine with sage
3.2.2) but it seems to keep sage 3.4.1 in a continuous loop when
entering notebook option.
Have you check if during instalation the authorizations to wmware
networks adapters in the windows firewall?
On May 13, 9:18 pm,
On May 14, 10:43 am, Alberto vand...@gmail.com wrote:
2.5.1 for sure that work. I has using 2.5.2 (that works fine with sage
3.2.2) but it seems to keep sage 3.4.1 in a continuous loop when
entering notebook option.
Interesting. I'll lok out for that when I get that far!
Have you check
Hello
x,y=var('x,y')
s = x*y2 + x*(-y2 - x2 + 1) + x3 - x
print simplify(s)
Answer :
2 22 3
x y + x (- y - x + 1) + x - x
+
I'm quite disappointed that
On May 14, 3:57 am, Laurent moky.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
Hi Laurent,
x,y=var('x,y')
s = x*y2 + x*(-y2 - x2 + 1) + x3 - x
print simplify(s)
Answer :
2 2 2 3
x y + x (- y - x
Dear Laurent,
On May 14, 12:57 pm, Laurent moky.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, the function simplify_full does not exist ... so I suppose that I
*do* miss something.
Yes. simplify_full is not a function but a method (after all, python
is object oriented).
So, you can do:
sage: x,y=var('x,y')
On May 14, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Laurent wrote:
Hello
x,y=var('x,y')
s = x*y2 + x*(-y2 - x2 + 1) + x3 - x
print simplify(s)
Answer :
2 22 3
x y + x (- y - x + 1) + x - x
On May 14, 12:57 pm, Laurent moky.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, the function simplify_full does not exist ... so I suppose that I
*do* miss something.
Yes. simplify_full is not a function but a method (after all, python
is object oriented).
Thanks all.
Indeed, simplify_all(s)
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 9:11 PM, Bill Page wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
This is because the branch in which the positive real root is real is
taken. We're opting for continuity and consistency with
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:59 AM, John Cremona wrote:
This debate has been going on for as long as computers have been in
existence. Yes, there is a case to be made the odd roots of negative
reals should return a negative real instead of the principal complex
root. But that leads to more
Bill Page wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:59 AM, John Cremona wrote:
This debate has been going on for as long as computers have been in
existence. Yes, there is a case to be made the odd roots of negative
reals should return a negative real instead of the principal complex
root. But that
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
Bill Page wrote:
Consider the problem to define
f(x) = x^(1/3)
so that it takes the real branch for x 0. The best I have been able
to come up with so far is:
sage: f = lambda x:
On May 14, 1:57 am, Josephine Ame elanma4je...@yahoo.com wrote:
What am I doing wrong?
z=(g+u)^2 + j^2*w^2
-c_0*exp(-g*L)*(cos(j*w*L)*(g+u)-j*w*sin(j*w*L))/c_0*exp(-g*L)*(cos(j*w*L)*
(g+u)-j*w*sin(j*w*L))
Exponentials written as exp(foo) ... OK.
Z = 1/P - 1 - (e^2/4)/z
Written
Bill Page wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
Bill Page wrote:
Consider the problem to define
f(x) = x^(1/3)
so that it takes the real branch for x 0. The best I have been able
to come up with so far is:
sage: f = lambda x:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Bill Page wrote:
Ok thanks. I recall the discussion and I can indeed write:
sage: f=lambda x:RR(x).nth_root(3)
sage: f(-2.0)
-1.25992104989487
but I think I'll let my earlier comment stand:
I think there should be a more obvious way.
I like Jason's idea (specifically real_nth_root) as a method.
However, to me the real issue is plotting. If someone tries to get a
cube root of -1 and gets a complex number, at least they see there is
an output! And then someone can help them understand why they get
that answer.
But there is
Hello folks,
most 3.4.2 binaries are up on sagemath.org and being mirrored out.
From the usual suspects some are still missing, i.e.
* Fedora Core 10 32 bit
* Atom
* RHEL 5.2/SLES 10 Itanium
* OSX 10.4 Intel
Most of the missing binaries will show up in the next 24 hours. We
also have some
On May 14, 2009, at 9:27 AM, RALPH THOMAS wrote:
Here is what I put into Sage
---
sage: from sage.server.misc import find_next_available_port
sage: port = find_next_available_port(, verbose=False)
sage: from
On May 14, 2009, at 12:25 PM, RALPH THOMAS wrote:
What I would like to do is have page(form) come up in a browser
that would let the user enter a lets say an equation then Sage
would solve the equation and show the answer. Or an integral then
Sage would calculate the value and display
On May 14, 2009, at 1:44 PM, RALPH THOMAS wrote:
Do you mean this
?php
$login_page = file_get_contents(http://localhost:$notebook_server:
$notebook_port/simple/login?username=adminpassword=$password' )
preg_match('.*session: ([^]*)', $login_page, $matches)
$session = $matches[1]
?
I can generate a list from any given group, but how would I go about
generating a list of just 3 or 5 cycles?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
I must be missing something. Why can't you just check the order of the element?
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:53 PM, jimfar jamesfar...@mac.com wrote:
I can generate a list from any given group, but how would I go about
generating a list of just 3 or 5 cycles?
I can find the order of the element, but I am looking to generate a
list of all of the 3 cycles in something like AlternatingGroup(5)
where the list will not go on for too long.
On May 14, 5:04 pm, David Joyner wdjoy...@gmail.com wrote:
I must be missing something. Why can't you just check the
Why doesn't the obvious 1-liner
[x for x in AlternatingGroup(5) if x.order()==3]
work? Again, am I missing something?
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:57 PM, jimfar jamesfar...@mac.com wrote:
I can find the order of the element, but I am looking to generate a
list of all of the 3 cycles in
Thanks, I was confusing myself with the definition of the order of an
element with order of the cycle.
On May 14, 6:52 pm, David Joyner wdjoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Why doesn't the obvious 1-liner
[x for x in AlternatingGroup(5) if x.order()==3]
work? Again, am I missing something?
On Thu,
Ah... message is gone, so I write again. OTL...
I solve the Linear Algebra course problems on Sage.
Now I get the nullity of matrix to use nullity function, but it's
weird.
If I get the nullity of matrix A to use nullity function like that,
A.nullity()
but the result of this is same as
NoSyu wrote:
Ah... message is gone, so I write again. OTL...
I solve the Linear Algebra course problems on Sage.
Now I get the nullity of matrix to use nullity function, but it's
weird.
If I get the nullity of matrix A to use nullity function like that,
A.nullity()
but
Thanks to reply my message.
I understand it.
You're right. From now, I use explicit function likes right_nullity.
I learned right nullity convention, so rank + nullity = number of
columns.
I discuss about it with my Prof.
Thanks again.
Have a nice weekend.^^
29 matches
Mail list logo