I don't get it... how should this make SAGE easier? From my point of view, I don't even remember anymore (my bad I know) what a ring represent, but this is not slowing down my SAGE learning, I think.
But what if tomorrow or the day after, I do need those? I'm sorry, I just don't get the point of removing stuff for engineers, how could this help them (I should say, us)? I think good examples and documentation would be SO MUCH better to have! My 2 cents Maurizio On 25 Mar, 16:09, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that you probably miss the point. Most engineers are not > trained in number theory, group theory, advanced algebra, etc. Leaving > these parts out of Sage would potentially make it easier to use. But > then maybe the engineer should use Maxima, or one of those other > systems that either ignores the central "pure math only" computational > parts of Sage, or relegates them to some less-prominent position. > RJF > > On Mar 25, 6:32 am, Stan Schymanski <schym...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am an example for someone that does use both modes. I do symbolic > > derivations and transformations and then apply them to data, so I fancy > > a system where both symbolic evaluations and numerical approximations > > can be done transparently. If one is only interested in numerical > > evaluations, why not use e.g. Octave? In my opinion, installing only a > > set of numerical tools or only a set of symbolic tools in Sage would > > amount to crippling a great piece of software, so if such an option was > > made possible we should make sure that a message is plastered all over > > the interface to make sure people don't confuse this with the real Sage. > > > I apologise in advance if I misunderstood the context of this thread. > > > Cheers > > Stan > > > Pablo Angulo wrote: > > >> It's all about acquiring a bigger audience in the applied fields. > > >> There is certainly the impression out there that Sage is MAINLY a CAS > > >> system (as opposed to a numerical system), and more geared towards > > >> pure mathematicians than engineers, physicists, and applied > > >> scientists. A separate and clear way to configure or to download an > > >> engineering version (say through a separate webpage), that is well > > >> advertised, would go a long way in helping Sage as a whole. Just my > > >> humble opinion. > > > > I found some of sage features a bit of a mess the first times I did > > > numerical computation in sage, like using Reals and Integers instead of > > > float or ints, or using rationals and symbolic expressions for radicals. > > > > But I think a numerical mode would be a better choice. Selecting python > > > in the drop list gets you closer to that, but it still yields the > > > symbolic sqrt(2) instead of the numerical approximation, for example. > > > > Just loading math.sqrt instead of sqrt and taking similar choices of > > > loaded packages would be enough for me, with same interface and package > > > base. Like me, I think many people would use one mode or the other, > > > depending on the task, so installing both the standard and the applied > > > versions would not be saving any space. > > > > Regards > > > Pablo > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
