>> The best I've come up with at this point is, given graphs
>> A,B,C,D,E, the
>> union is:
>>
>> A.union(B).union(C).union(D).union(E)
>
> I actually think that this looks very clear, despite the lack of
> infix operators.
>
I agree -- especially since it looks like a literal translation of
th
Mike Hansen wrote:
> Of all the code I've read in lots of different languages, I think code
> written for Mathematica has been the least transparent.
I guess I've always loved functional languages, so the simple core
principles appealed to me right away. Some things I love include the
consistenc
On Sep 26, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> The sage coercion model guarantees that when x.__add__(y) is called
>> (well, technically x._add_ or x._add_c_impl), the argument y is of
>> the same type and parent as x. For example
>>
>> sage: R. = ZZ[]
>> sage: x+1/2
> The best I've come up with at this point is, given graphs A,B,C,D,E, the
> union is:
>
> A.union(B).union(C).union(D).union(E)
>
> where the union function returns the modified graph each time so I can
> keep chaining union function calls. The union actually modifies the
> graph A, so if you wa
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> The sage coercion model guarantees that when x.__add__(y) is called
> (well, technically x._add_ or x._add_c_impl), the argument y is of
> the same type and parent as x. For example
>
> sage: R. = ZZ[]
> sage: x+1/2
> x + 1/2
> sage: parent(x)
> Univariate Polynomial
The sage coercion model guarantees that when x.__add__(y) is called
(well, technically x._add_ or x._add_c_impl), the argument y is of
the same type and parent as x. For example
sage: R. = ZZ[]
sage: x+1/2
x + 1/2
sage: parent(x)
Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Integer Ring
sage: parent(
I managed to get gmp, mpfr, and mpfrcpp to compile and link
successfully.
It took a bit of effort to get it working, so I thought I'd record my
settings here in case
other people find them useful
machine: G5 powerpc, mac os x 10.4.10, gcc 4.0.1:
settings for gmp-4.2.1:
./configure --enable-cxx
Michael,
Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions, the survey
was conducted by a large IT analysis firm called Evans Data
Corporation which as far as I can tell has been producing surveys for
around 10 years. They explicitly spell out their methodology on their
website and I don'
Of all the code I've read in lots of different languages, I think code
written for Mathematica has been the least transparent.
--Mike
On 9/26/07, Chris Chiasson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It might be worth pointing out that adding "new" syntax in Mathematica
> is (usually) done by assignment
It might be worth pointing out that adding "new" syntax in Mathematica
is (usually) done by assignments to the function that transforms
general two dimensional input into source code. That isn't really the
same thing as adding a new operator to the language itself.
On Sep 26, 2:07 pm, Jason Grout
cwitty wrote:
> On Sep 26, 7:31 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can we define custom infix operators? Suppose I'd like "boxproduct" to
>> be an infix operator. Could I make that work?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>
> If you're willing to put a lot of effort into the project, you migh
Hi,
I have released sage-2.8.5.1.http://sagemath.org
SAGE 2.8.5.1
This is a minor bug fix release that does have a lot of new code
related specifically
to algebraic number theory (especially relative number fields).
702 Robert Bradshaw -- Bug fixes for the ellipsis range notation
On Sep 26, 6:06 pm, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's an interesting article on slashdot.org today about the
> reception the GPLv3 is getting.
>
> Bill.
Hello Bill,
I would consider that article pretty worthless. I wouldn't even call
it an article, it is just a press release. Th
Bill,
On my ia64-Linux machine,
I get the following error with the "-funroll-loops" option. I am
using gcc-4.2.1. If I take out that option, things compile fine.
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/kate/sage/sage-2.8.5-ia64-Linux/
spkg/build/flint-0.2.p2/src'
gcc -std=c99 -I"/usr/include" -I/ho
On Sep 26, 7:31 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we define custom infix operators? Suppose I'd like "boxproduct" to
> be an infix operator. Could I make that work?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
If you're willing to put a lot of effort into the project, you might
be able to do something
> Well, as long as "is similar in spirit" is interpreted by a court in
> the way we all would hope, then that's all good.
>
> I hope we can leave all this licensing stuff behind soon and get on
> with writing great code.
And how about just agreeing to release all the code with a copyright
set to
On 26-Sep-07, at 10:13 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Nostalgia for Algol68 ! The line
>
> OP OVER = (INT n,d)RAT: cancel(RAT(n,d));
>
> is taken from my implementation of rational numbers so "one half"
> could be written
>
> 1 OVER 2
>
> and I could also write
>
> DET M
The past is the present:
Nostalgia for Algol68 ! The line
OP OVER = (INT n,d)RAT: cancel(RAT(n,d));
is taken from my implementation of rational numbers so "one half"
could be written
1 OVER 2
and I could also write
DET M
for the determinant of a matrix (ok, that's prefix not infix).
Don't mock, my original tables
No, I don't think you can make custom infix operators in Python. With
something as long as 'boxproduct', you'd probably just be better off
making it a method.
--Mike
On 9/26/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mike Hansen wrote:
> > Since I don't think that graphs and polytopes fall
On Sep 25, 6:40 pm, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still have a question about how one computes an approximate
> polynomial for a + b for algebraic a and b, given approximate
> polynomials for a and b, using interval arithmetic.
I don't. :-)
There are several possible representations f
-- Forwarded message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sep 26, 2007 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: SINGULAR's Licences
To: Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi there,
>
> on [sage-devel] there is this huge discussion going o
On 9/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear sage-devel readers,
>
> following the discussion on sage-devel last week we implemented a
> modular approach to compute the multivariate gcd over QQ in
> Singular.
> We still need to develop the heuristic when to prefer
> EZGCD or the
On Sep 25, 4:37 pm, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is my second question (one looks doubly smart if one has two
> difficult questions and still no clue): is it true that one can easily
> tell if two algebraic numbers are *not* equal in this system, but to
> check if they are equal, on
There's an interesting article on slashdot.org today about the
reception the GPLv3 is getting.
Bill.
On 25 Sep, 21:47, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2007, at 4:43 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Okay, so what if MS makes the FSF people an offer they can't refuse,
> >>
Mike Hansen wrote:
> Since I don't think that graphs and polytopes fall under the SAGE
> coercion model, overloading operators is pretty straightforward. You
> just need to define the __add__ method in your class. x + y will call
> x.__add__(y).
>
> sage: class Foo:
> : def __add__(self
25 matches
Mail list logo
