Hi all,
as indicated in the crash message, I email you the crash report.
Cheers,
***
IPython post-mortem report
{'commit_hash': u'b467d487e',
'commit_source': 'installation',
'default_encoding': 'UTF-8',
'ipython_path':
Paul, thank you very much for the reference to your book. This is a great help
for me since I have still a lot of polynomial divisions to perform. -- Patrick
Reichert
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this gro
Posting on behalf of Paul Zimmermann:
> The workaround is not to create the quotient ring.
> It is better to work in polynomial rings and to use the "lift" command
> directly in Sage.
note that this is discussed in detail in Chapter 9 of the book
"Mathematical Computation with SageMath" availab
--
S. Venkataraman
--
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 it, send an email
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@
Hello,
I don't know if this is the right place to submit bugs.
I have consistently reproduced the following bug:
using set_block when matrix space is on a given NumberField or an extension
field (at least
when there are multiple generators) works as expected the first time (in a
sage sessio
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Pierre wrote:
> I agree. Surely in the code one has started with a right action (say) and
> has then decided to sometimes convert it to a left action using inverses.
>
> However, some consistency would be good :-) After all, various pieces of
> code seem to disagr
I agree. Surely in the code one has started with a right action (say) and
has then decided to sometimes convert it to a left action using inverses.
However, some consistency would be good :-) After all, various pieces of
code seem to disagree on what U is...
On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 3:32:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Pierre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just realized this, and thought it would be helpful to know for
> anyone playing with Sage's Rubik's cube abilitites. Here it is:
>
> While the following 3 commands:
>
> sage: CubeGroup().move("U")
>
> and
>
> sage: CubeGroup().plot3d
Hi,
I have just realized this, and thought it would be helpful to know for
anyone playing with Sage's Rubik's cube abilitites. Here it is:
While the following 3 commands:
sage: CubeGroup().move("U")
and
sage: CubeGroup().plot3d_cube("U")
and
sage: RubiksCube().move("U").show3d()
all take t
>From a user:
I verified that Sage does what he claims [1]. I guess this is a bug
in Maxima really.
I'm constantly getting basic calculus bug reports because of
SageMathCloud.We don't have a "sage-bugs" list, and even I'm not
sure where to send these bug reports...
"Hello,
I tried this inp
Hi there,
solve([sin(cos(x))/cos(x)==0],x) gives:
[x == 1/2*pi]
which is wrong. There is no solution.
See plot(sin(cos(x))/cos(x),(-pi,pi))
Best regards,
Christoph Jentzsch
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe f
11 matches
Mail list logo
