I've posted a couple of times about making some modifications to the
code for kernels of matrices. After a lot of thought and a lot of
digging around, I've now got several questions that I would appreciate
advice on before I jump into making changes.
The itch I'm scratching is that I am adding t
> > 3. Any singular matrix when inverted should raise a DivisionByZero Error.
> > In numpy case this probably means catching an exception to launch a
> > different one. Am I right ?
>
> You mean a ZeroDivisionError, right?
Sure !!! It's hard to use several languages at the same time :-).
Flor
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Your proposal sounds good.
Yes, I also strongly agree with it.
I also second Michael's remark that you shouldn't worry at all about
volume to this list -- it is meant to be "high volume". There have
been on average about 30 me
...
Your proposal sounds good.
> 3. Any singular matrix when inverted should raise a DivisionByZero Error.
> In numpy case this probably means catching an exception to launch a
> different one. Am I right ?
You mean a ZeroDivisionError, right?
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://
On Feb 7, 3:37 pm, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> Dear William
Hi Florent,
> Yes... This was perfectly clear to me. And that's why I volunteered to makes
> things coherent.
Thanks. It is very important to make all the various classes of Sage
more consistent. Some work has been done in tha
Dear William
> Maybe. I'm not convinced it's better. It's usually good when people
> write code, they do
>
> try:
> ...
> except (Specific, Tuple, Of, Exceptions):
> code
>
> and *never*
>
> try:
> ...
> except:
> ...
Yes... This was perfectly clear to me. And that's w
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
>
>> For trying to invert a non-square matrix, I think the error should be
>> a ValueError, since you're inputing an improper value so that the
>> operation is meaningless.
>>
>> >From http://docs.python.org/library/exceptions.html
>>
>> excep
> For trying to invert a non-square matrix, I think the error should be
> a ValueError, since you're inputing an improper value so that the
> operation is meaningless.
>
> >From http://docs.python.org/library/exceptions.html
>
> exception ValueError
> Raised when a built-in operation or func
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>> Yes, write code to workaround this case.
>
> This is mostly done except that on some ring the 0x3 matrix is considered to
> be invertible ! And also that the error messages are inconsistent: some raise
> a ValueError some rais
Hi
> Yes, write code to workaround this case.
This is mostly done except that on some ring the 0x3 matrix is considered to
be invertible ! And also that the error messages are inconsistent: some raise
a ValueError some raise an ArithmeticError, some says "self must be a square
matrix" some
On Feb 7, 9:16 am, Ronan Paixão wrote:
> I respect your opinions and actually I just wanted to post mine. Surely
> I don't have the skills even to start such a great venture as porting a
> zillion apps to work on Windows. Actually, I don't really intend it to
> use Cygwin or whatever wrapper
Yes, write code to workaround this case.
On 2/7/09, Florent Hivert wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 03:22:51PM +, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>>
>> > One community question : suppose that this happen and that I don't
>> > find the correct way to fix it (no one knows about strange data
>> > st
On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 03:22:51PM +, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> > One community question : suppose that this happen and that I don't
> > find the correct way to fix it (no one knows about strange data structure
> > :-)) is this ok to post a patch that test the problem and raise a doc error
>
Em Sáb, 2009-02-07 às 11:52 +1100, Minh Nguyen escreveu:
> Hi folks,
>
> Paul Zimmermann delivered a talk on Sage on 2009-01-19. This
> information has been added to the Sage talks wiki at
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/Talks
>
> Thank you, Paul, for your effort in spreading the word about Sage.
Em Sex, 2009-02-06 às 12:59 -0800, mabshoff escreveu:
>
>
> On Feb 6, 9:53 am, Ronan Paixão wrote:
> > Em Ter, 2009-01-27 às 06:13 -0800, mabshoff escreveu:
>
>
>
> Hi Ronan,
>
> > I'm against all that SUA stuff. I completely agree it's a great help to
> > get sage running on Windows, but t
Em Sex, 2009-02-06 às 22:18 +0200, ahmet alper parker escreveu:
> One more comment on the subject. As we were trying to solve a
> Sturm-Lioville boundary value problem by finite difference method, we
> calculated eigenvalues and eigenvectors of some matrices on matlab and
> mathematica. In both of
Hi,
I'm getting the following error when attempting to add gnuplot to
sage by typing
sage -i gnuplot-4.0.0
when in /Applications/sage> :
> gplt_x11.c:519: error: 'Class ' redeclared as different kind of
> symbol
> :0: error: previous declaration of 'Class ' was here
> make[3]: *** [gplt_x11.o
Sorry for the previous mail !!! I didn't paste everything I meant to.
> > I certainly want to be able to create 0x0 matrices, and would insist
> > that the determinant is 1. So it seems consistent to say that such a
> > matrix is invertible; and then there isn't much choice for the
> > inverse!
Dear John Cremona,
> I certainly want to be able to create 0x0 matrices, and would insist
> that the determinant is 1. So it seems consistent to say that such a
> matrix is invertible; and then there isn't much choice for the
> inverse!
Agreed !!! The following current behavior is indeed
> One community question : suppose that this happen and that I don't
> find the correct way to fix it (no one knows about strange data structure
> :-)) is this ok to post a patch that test the problem and raise a doc error
> and to add a trac ticket for this specific problem ?
I'd say: Don't rais
I certainly want to be able to create 0x0 matrices, and would insist
that the determinant is 1. So it seems consistent to say that such a
matrix is invertible; and then there isn't much choice for the
inverse!
John
2009/2/7 Florent Hivert :
>
> Dear Martin Albrecht,
>
> Thanks for your qui
Dear Martin Albrecht,
Thanks for your quick answer.
> > So my question is the following: is there a specific reason why this test
> > has been written ?
>
> I wrote that doctest, because that behaviour is consistent with other
> matrices.
>
> sage: A = random_matrix(GF(127),0,0)
On Saturday 07 February 2009, Florent Hivert wrote:
> Dear All,
>
>I'm preparing a patch which allows one to use generic_power (computing
> a^n) for monoids and even semi groups. So I had to change the handling of
> particular cases (a=0 or n=0). After this change all tests passes except
Dear All,
I'm preparing a patch which allows one to use generic_power (computing a^n)
for monoids and even semi groups. So I had to change the handling of
particular cases (a=0 or n=0). After this change all tests passes except for
one in matrix_mod2_dense:
**
24 matches
Mail list logo
