John Voight wrote:
> Hello all--
>
Hello John,
> I got the following message today:
>
>
> Unhandled SIGSEGV: A segmentation fault occured in SAGE.
> This probably occured because a *compiled* component
> of SAGE has a bug in it (typic
Hello all--
I got the following message today:
Unhandled SIGSEGV: A segmentation fault occured in SAGE.
This probably occured because a *compiled* component
of SAGE has a bug in it (typically accessing invalid memory)
or is not properl
On Sep 18, 2:10 pm, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about providing a sum function that would behave like, say, the
> integrate function. It could detect the argument types so if you
> passed it a list, it'd behave the same as the builtin sum function.
>
> sage: integrate(x, x, 0,
BTW, matlab has 1-based indexing too. Maple has both: there is an
array object that can be 0,1,2,... based and a List object that is
1-based. I think it would be nice to have an iterator object similar
to (1:n) in matlab (but not a list object).
didier
2007/9/18, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 14:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> I still like the [a..b] notation that makes
> things totally obvious, and I am as surprised as Peter Doyle at the
> shift of topic of whether or not indices should be 0-based (which we
> don't have a choice about while sticking wi
For inspiration, it might be worth comparing to Allan Steel's
algebraically closed field construction:
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/htmlhelp/text702.htm
At no point is the field actually algebraically closed--it is just the
affine algebra on the elements that you've already adjoined--but
How about providing a sum function that would behave like, say, the
integrate function. It could detect the argument types so if you
passed it a list, it'd behave the same as the builtin sum function.
sage: integrate(x, x, 0, 10)
50
sage: sum(x, x, 0, 10)
55
sage: sum(range(10))
45
I'm having t
On Sep 18, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Jaap Spies wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Peter Doyle (a Professor at Dartmouth)
>> Date: Sep 18, 2007 10:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: Calculus
>> To: William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Hi William,
>>
>>> There was a
On Sep 18, 2007, at 7:42 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Would someone be able to define a number field by supplying the value
> of the klein j-function at a point in a quadratic order? E.g.
> QQ[sqrt(-47), ellj((1+sqrt(-47))/2))]
>
> What about:
>
> f1(x) = eta(x/2,1)/eta(x,1)
> K = QQ[abs(f1((1+sqrt(-47
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> Why not define a new function srange (short for sagerange),
>> or redefine the existing srange function:
>>
>> def srange(a,b=None,step=1, include_endpoint=True):
>>
>> or something like that.
>>
>> See sage: srange??
>>
>> Alternative: reuse xrange
>> this function will
William Stein wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Peter Doyle (a Professor at Dartmouth)
> Date: Sep 18, 2007 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Calculus
> To: William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi William,
>
>> There was a long thread on sage-devel about this:
>>
>>
> http://group
William wrote:
> Sage is free software produced mostly by volunteer work.
> There is currently not a single person who is paid fulltime
> to work on Sage. The current goal with Sage is not to maximize
> profit, and as such, the phrase "target market" is likely have a
> different meaning for Sag
-- Forwarded message --
From: Peter Doyle (a Professor at Dartmouth)
Date: Sep 18, 2007 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Calculus
To: William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi William,
> There was a long thread on sage-devel about this:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread
On 9/18/07, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is a basic mathematics/CS divide. Mathematicians will expect
> > their vectors of length n to have indices 1..n and similarly for
> > matrices and so on. The packages pari and magma use that convention
> > accordinly, since they are writ
On 9/18/07, Peter Doyle <> wrote:
>
> Hi William,
>
> > When you click download, what happens is that you save the file
> > to your local disk, and only after that happens it happens to
> > be opened by a pdf (or dvi or ps) reader on your computer. Three
> > separate things happen.
> >
>
> Actuall
On Sep 18, 9:04 am, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > True. I've been looking forward to somebody rewriting the preparse
> > (...)
> > function for a long time. Much to my surprise nobody has. I don't
> > think
> > anybody has even tried, though people have suggested they would try
John wrote:
> This is a basic mathematics/CS divide. Mathematicians will expect
> their vectors of length n to have indices 1..n and similarly for
> matrices and so on. The packages pari and magma use that convention
> accordinly, since they are written for mathematicians to be as close
> to ma
> True. I've been looking forward to somebody rewriting the preparse
> (...)
> function for a long time. Much to my surprise nobody has. I don't
> think
> anybody has even tried, though people have suggested they would try
> on a few occasions.
I did! In the end, I never was able to parse
On 9/18/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about the original proposition ... although
> I
> have spent the last week being thoroughly vexed by python being zero-based
> when all the things I would write on paper about math would index things
> one-based
Would someone be able to define a number field by supplying the value
of the klein j-function at a point in a quadratic order? E.g.
QQ[sqrt(-47), ellj((1+sqrt(-47))/2))]
What about:
f1(x) = eta(x/2,1)/eta(x,1)
K = QQ[abs(f1((1+sqrt(-47))/2))^2/sqrt(2)]
What about values of the exponential funct
I have very mixed feelings about this. I am a mathematician,
definitely not a CS person, but I think people just need to get used
to the behavior of range. It took me a while to adjust, but the
benefits of learning python were well worth it. I think the preparser
should be as minimal as possibl
> I vote against it!
>
> (a) because I usually vote against preparser changes :-)
> (b) it means SAGE is slowly getting its own language and
> (c) it breaks conventions, i.e. it adds confusion IMHO.
> (d) It might be because I used to be CS major but I think it is okay just
> educate users about t
Martin Albrecht wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 September 2007, John Cremona wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Sorry if this sounds negative, but I have a feeling that sage-devel
>> has more CS people in it than mathematicians!
>
> The main issue is: Starting at 1 cannot be done if you want to keep using
> Python, i.e.
On 9/18/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:00 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > I also want to make ZZ[a,b,c]
> > work, if a,b,c are algebraic integers.
>
> Suppose that b and c are roots of x^3 - 2, but without any embedding
> information given. How do you decid
On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:55 PM, William Stein wrote:
> And, if anybody out there thinks adding the above to the preparser
> would make you positively cringe in disgust, please speak up!
> (It doesn't mean we won't add it anyways...)
Positively cringe in disgust.
-1
david
--~--~-~--~--
On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:00 AM, William Stein wrote:
> I also want to make ZZ[a,b,c]
> work, if a,b,c are algebraic integers.
Suppose that b and c are roots of x^3 - 2, but without any embedding
information given. How do you decide what Q[b, c] means? i.e. how do
you tell whether b and c are
On Tuesday 18 September 2007, John Cremona wrote:
> [I'm not sure why this thread is atll called "Calculus"!]
>
> This is a basic mathematics/CS divide. Mathematicians will expect
> their vectors of length n to have indices 1..n and similarly for
> matrices and so on. The packages pari and magma
[I'm not sure why this thread is atll called "Calculus"!]
This is a basic mathematics/CS divide. Mathematicians will expect
their vectors of length n to have indices 1..n and similarly for
matrices and so on. The packages pari and magma use that convention
accordinly, since they are written for
On 9/18/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:25 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> > It's ok for sqrt(2).parent() to be an order, but what about
> > sqrt(1/2).parent() ? Would that be the field? Not very nice since it
> > will not be obvious from the form of the inp
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 00:32, Nick Alexander wrote:
> > Robert, Since you do so much work on Cython, maybe you could think
> > about the formal specification of the Python language and see whether
> > ..
> > not appearing in a string is ever valid Python. I.e., could we add
> > [e
On 9/17/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/17/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It sounds from what you write though, that it is best to just stick
> > > with the "upload" / "download" terminology, since it is *very* clear
> > > in which direction the file goes
On Sep 18, 2:51 am, "didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/9/16, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Didier, does "sage -testall" pass on your install?
>
> Actually, I stopped at lapack due to lack of time. I'm plan to
> continue where I left things off on thursday (a little before
On Sep 17, 10:55 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, if anybody out there thinks adding the above to the preparser
> would make you positively cringe in disgust, please speak up!
> (It doesn't mean we won't add it anyways...)
If you ask me, my opinion would be not to change it.
On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:50 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>>> I wonder if there would be some consistent way to make 1..4 stand
>>> for
>>> an iterator, and [1..4] a list. Hmm: then since we'd want
>>> [2,3,5..9]
>>> to be a list, we'd want 2,3,5..9 to be an iterator, whereas
>>> (2,3,5..9)
>
> > I wonder if there would be some consistent way to make 1..4 stand for
> > an iterator, and [1..4] a list. Hmm: then since we'd want [2,3,5..9]
> > to be a list, we'd want 2,3,5..9 to be an iterator, whereas (2,3,5..9)
> > would presumably be a tuple, which seems problematic. Is there a
> >
Sorry to double-post, but what convention are you referring to that
we are breaking?
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:39 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> Yeah, I'm not sure if the benefits would be worth breaking such a
> strong Python convention.I'd rather have consistency since it
> appears so often in oth
There is the (obscure) Ellipsis object that, only in the context of a
multi-dimensional slice list, is represented by '...' (exactly three
dots). Exactly two subsequent dots is illegal.
I don't think there is a suitable binary operation to hijack, however
I think
'[' expr1 [,]..[,] expr2 '
On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:25 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> It's ok for sqrt(2).parent() to be an order, but what about
> sqrt(1/2).parent() ? Would that be the field? Not very nice since it
> will not be obvious from the form of the input whether or not the
> symbolic expression is integral.
sqrt(1/2
It's ok for sqrt(2).parent() to be an order, but what about
sqrt(1/2).parent() ? Would that be the field? Not very nice since it
will not be obvious from the form of the input whether or not the
symbolic expression is integral.
There is a whole can of worms here just waiting to be released, und
39 matches
Mail list logo
