Interestingly enough, William and I were just talking about the
coercion model today. The issue came up when deciding how to apply
the sqrt() operator to, say, the rational number 2. Currently it
returns a decimal approximation, and as of 2.5 it returns an element
of the symbolic expressio
On 4/26/07, Jonathan William Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There also seem to be some other issues which come from maxima. One
> example is
>
> sage: print B
> sqrt(3) I 1
> -- - -
>
There also seem to be some other issues which come from maxima. One
example is
sage: print B
sqrt(3) I 1
-- - -
22
sage: bool(B^3 == 1)
False
sage: bool(expand(B^3) == 1)
True
A
On 4/26/07, David Roe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know what kind of software out there exists for algebraic
> topology? I hear that Singular has a library for doing ext and tor, etc (I
> think it's called homolog_lib).
There is Kenzo, written in lisp:
http://www-fourier.ujf-grenobl
On Apr 26, 2007, at 8:55 PM, David Roe wrote:
> Please let me know what you think of all of this, and if you have
> ideas/suggestions/etc. I have a few spin-off things that I've been
> thinking about that I'll write follow-up e-mails for.
I just want to pipe up here: a few weeks ago, I had
[cohomology and algebraic topology]
Thinking about commutative diagrams made me want to implement chain
complexes, homology and cohomology in SAGE. This led me to wonder how easy
it would be to provide useful functionality to algebraic topologists out
there. For example, it would not be very hard
[completions at places of number fields]
So, one thing that SAGE should support is completing a number field at a
place. The resulting object will be either RR, CC, Qp, or a p-adic
extension field. I think that it should also include the data of which
completion it is. This allows one to automat
In the course of thinking about coercion for p-adic rings, fields and
extensions, I've had some ideas about a different kind of coercion model to
use for SAGE. It would fit into the existing coercion model, though I can
see it motivating changes to the existing model.
SAGE currently does quite we
Thanks!!
On 4/26/07, Jonathan William Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Never mind all that - it seems that the fix is easy. Just after
>
> symbols = {operator.lt:' < ', operator.le:' <= ', operator.eq:' == ',
>operator.ne:' != ',
> operator.ge:' >= ', operator.gt:' > '
Never mind all that - it seems that the fix is easy. Just after
symbols = {operator.lt:' < ', operator.le:' <= ', operator.eq:' == ',
operator.ne:' != ',
operator.ge:' >= ', operator.gt:' > '}
maxima_symbols = dict(symbols)
maxima_symbols[operator.eq] = '='
in calculus/eq
Unless I am misunderstanding something, 2.5.alpha0 seems to have some
problems with equality testing. A typical example is
sage: bool(sqrt(2) == 1)
False
sage: bool(sqrt(2) != 1)
False
However, the following does work correctly:
sage: bool(sqrt(2) < 1)
False
sage: bool(sqrt(2) > 1)
True
This s
[sage list added]
"Travis E. Oliphant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SAGE people may be interested in this, but I doubt there will more
> than a handful of users of these algebraic base classes.
SAGE has quite a sophisticated type hierarchy, and a sophisticated set
of coercion methods. Wh
On 4/25/07, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 April 2007 08:17, William Stein wrote:
> > Martin,
> >
> > On OS X your singular package almost, but doesn't exactly work.
> > Basically it gets names libsingular.dylib. However when SAGE looks
> > for it, it looks for libsin
13 matches
Mail list logo
