Hi all,
In sage/devel/symbolic/ring.pyx, I find this in the SymbolicRing.__init__:
self._populate_coercion_lists_(convert_method_name='_symbolic_')
Later on, I find this in SymbolicRing._element_constructor_:
elif hasattr(x, '_symbolic_'):
return x._symbolic_(self)
This alpha release of Sage closed 19 tickets (on top of 4.4.alpha0).
Source tarball:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.4.alpha1/sage-4.4.alpha1.tar
sage.math binary:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.4.alpha1/sage-4.4.alpha1-sage.math.washington.edu-x86_64-Li
Dear John and Michael,
On 20 Apr., 22:14, John Cremona wrote:
> descent -> Abstieg
> isogeny -> Isogenie
Thank you!
Cheers,
Simon
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Fo
The original question about eigenvectors was prompted by the
following. Eigenvectors over RDF and CDF are computed by SciPy and
returned with their eigenvalues as if each eigenvalue has algebraic
and geometric multiplicity 1. Decisions about "equal" eigenvalues are
left to the caller. SciPy norm
-- Forwarded message --
From: Michael Stoll
Date: 2010/4/20
Subject: Re: Fwd: [sage-devel] Re: Missing bit in the number theory tutorial
To: John Cremona
Am Tuesday 20 April 2010 18:28:43 schrieben Sie:
> Dear Michael,
>
> Someone is translating Sage documentation into German.
Hi,
The sagemath-related webpage will all be down for at least the next 30 minutes.
William
--
William Stein
Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
Dear John,
On Apr 20, 4:50 pm, John Cremona wrote:
> Allow me (though perhaps sage-nt is a better forum?):
Perhaps. But I thought a question on translating the docs is better
asked on sage-devel.
> > First another missing word in my mathematical dictionary:
> > What is "descent" (in the context
Allow me (though perhaps sage-nt is a better forum?):
On 20 April 2010 16:36, Simon King wrote:
> Dear Elliptic Curve experts,
>
> First another missing word in my mathematical dictionary:
> What is "descent" (in the context of Elliptic Curves) in German? Is
> "Abstieg" or "Deszent" used?
I thin
Dear Elliptic Curve experts,
First another missing word in my mathematical dictionary:
What is "descent" (in the context of Elliptic Curves) in German? Is
"Abstieg" or "Deszent" used?
Another question is about the Elliptic Curve functionality of Sage:
In the Sage tutorial, section tour_advanced,
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 04/20/2010 08:28 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Jason Grout
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/20/2010 07:25 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2010, Tom Boothby
wrote:
>
> +1 to con
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Do you mind posting this example? Was it truly a bug (i.e., unintentional
> wrong behavior), or a result of double precision computation rounding things
> off? In other words, were the returned evals almost real? What was the
> condition n
On 04/20/2010 08:28 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
On 04/20/2010 07:25 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2010, Tom Boothbywrote:
+1 to consistency. IMHO, imprecise fields should represent their zero
as 0.0, as floats do.
Jaso
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Tim Lahey wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:42 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>> In summary: what is a sensible or desirable normalisation depends a
>> lot on what the field is and what sort of mathematics you are doing!
>>
>> John
>
> Matlab has a bug in its eigen rout
On 04/20/2010 06:52 AM, Tim Lahey wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:42 AM, John Cremona wrote:
In summary: what is a sensible or desirable normalisation depends a
lot on what the field is and what sort of mathematics you are doing!
John
Matlab has a bug in its eigen routines, at least in its
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 04/20/2010 07:25 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, April 19, 2010, Tom Boothby wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to consistency. IMHO, imprecise fields should represent their zero
>>> as 0.0, as floats do.
>>
>> Jason's patch does not do that
On 04/20/2010 07:25 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2010, Tom Boothby wrote:
+1 to consistency. IMHO, imprecise fields should represent their zero
as 0.0, as floats do.
Jason's patch does not do that
That's right. In Sage, notice that RR(0) does not print out 0.0, it
p
John,
certainly, over exact field you don't want to create unnecessary
square roots.
(actually, I would argue against normalisation in fields like QQbar,
as division is expensive there...)
Dima
On Apr 20, 7:42 pm, John Cremona wrote:
> I would say: over an inexact field like R or C then it is se
There's a trac ticket that has been waiting for this for two years:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1004
I would be happy to help review this. Sergey, it would be great if
you and/or Natalia got accounts on trac - it is a lot easier to polish
things off there then by email.
This has l
On Monday, April 19, 2010, Tom Boothby wrote:
> +1 to consistency. IMHO, imprecise fields should represent their zero
> as 0.0, as floats do.
Jason's patch does not do that
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> Look at this inconsistency:
>>
>> sage: RR(0)
>> 0.
On 20 Apr., 13:53, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> "die Isogenie"
>
> Alex
Thanks Alex!
Best regards,
Simon
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group a
Hi John!
On 20 Apr., 13:48, John Cremona wrote:
> Google says Isogenie which looks reasonable (unless someone else knows
> better!)
Thank you, that was what I guessed (although I am a bit sceptical
against Google translations to German, because many Germans tend to
take notions from [in some c
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:45:31 -0700 (PDT), Simon King
wrote:
> Hi John!
>
> On 20 Apr., 13:38, John Cremona wrote:
> > Other than Q I guess.
>
> Thank you!
>
> While we are at it: What is the German translation of "isogeny"?
>
"die Isogenie"
Alex
--
Alex Ghitza -- http://aghitza.org/
Lec
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:42 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> In summary: what is a sensible or desirable normalisation depends a
> lot on what the field is and what sort of mathematics you are doing!
>
> John
Matlab has a bug in its eigen routines, at least in its eigenvalue
routines so I'm
assuming th
On 20 April 2010 12:48, Simon King wrote:
> Again Hi!
>
> On 20 Apr., 13:38, John Cremona wrote:
>> Other than Q I guess.
>
> But if it is Q then perhaps one could drop that "other than...",
> because I guess the "ring of integers in the rational field" is
> already implemented in Sage...
Of cou
On 20 April 2010 12:47, John Cremona wrote:
> On 20 April 2010 12:45, Simon King wrote:
>> Hi John!
>>
>> On 20 Apr., 13:38, John Cremona wrote:
>>> Other than Q I guess.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> While we are at it: What is the German translation of "isogeny"?
>
> I don't know, but will ask...
>
Again Hi!
On 20 Apr., 13:38, John Cremona wrote:
> Other than Q I guess.
But if it is Q then perhaps one could drop that "other than...",
because I guess the "ring of integers in the rational field" is
already implemented in Sage...
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googleg
On 20 April 2010 12:45, Simon King wrote:
> Hi John!
>
> On 20 Apr., 13:38, John Cremona wrote:
>> Other than Q I guess.
>
> Thank you!
>
> While we are at it: What is the German translation of "isogeny"?
I don't know, but will ask...
John
>
> Cheers,
> Simon
>
> --
> To post to this group, se
Hi John!
On 20 Apr., 13:38, John Cremona wrote:
> Other than Q I guess.
Thank you!
While we are at it: What is the German translation of "isogeny"?
Cheers,
Simon
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-deve
I would say: over an inexact field like R or C then it is sensible to
normalize as Dima suggests (norm 1) rather than making any one
nonzero coordinate 1. But over exact fields (e.g. finite fields,
number fields) it does make perfect sense to normalise to the first
(or last?) nonzero coordinate
Other than Q I guess.
John
On 20 April 2010 12:24, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am currently translating the Sage tutorial to German. I noticed that
> in the number theory section there is an incomplete sentence: "Much
> work has been done implementing rings of integers in
> :math:`p`-adic fiel
Dan,
indeed, it's not too bad to normalize to norm 1, say, but it is quite
bad to normalize a given coordinate to 1.
I cc this to sage-devel
Best,
Dima
On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 at 07:50PM -0700, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 3:29 am, William Stein wrot
Hi!
I am currently translating the Sage tutorial to German. I noticed that
in the number theory section there is an incomplete sentence: "Much
work has been done implementing rings of integers in
:math:`p`-adic fields or number fields other than . The
interested reader is invited to ask the expert
> Very interesting. I must say Minh, you have done more to document Sage and
> procedures more than anyone else.
+1
Nathann
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more o
Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
Here's an interesting article about a kind of "Summer of Documentation":
http://ostatic.com/blog/wheres-the-summer-of-documentation
Very interesting. I must say Minh, you have done more to document Sage and
procedures more than anyone else.
--
To post to this
34 matches
Mail list logo
