PPS:
On 10 Feb., 08:34, Simon King wrote:
> ...
> But I think the problem here is not coercion but the "right" (or at
> least reasonable) choice of a definition. What would textbooks say?
I should add: I do believe that the choice is already made and the
choice is fine (see Tim's and William's p
PS:
On 9 Feb., 15:57, luisfe wrote:
> There is also something wrong with lcm for rationals
>
> sage: a = 2/3 # rational
> sage: b = 1 # integer
> sage: gcd(a,b)
> 1
> sage: lcm(a,b)
> ...
> TypeError
I would agree that this is a bug. I think it would be just consequent
to first coerce a and b
Hi all!
On 9 Feb., 15:57, luisfe wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:46 am, "D. S. McNeil" wrote:
>
> > >> (1) gcd is broken. http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10459
> > [..]
> > > I'm personally OK either way with this.
>
> > IMO a*b = gcd(a,b)*lcm(a,b) should be maintained wherever possible.
What
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, daly wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 22:18 -0800, rjf wrote:
>> You say,
>> > gcd(2/1,4) returns 1 "for simplicity" (!), because 2/1 is a rational.
>> > This is shockingly silly.
>>
>> I don't know exactly how this came up, but if 2/1 is in a different
>> domain (ra
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 22:18 -0800, rjf wrote:
> You say,
> > gcd(2/1,4) returns 1 "for simplicity" (!), because 2/1 is a rational.
> > This is shockingly silly.
>
> I don't know exactly how this came up, but if 2/1 is in a different
> domain (rational)
> from 2, (integer), then gcd should probabl
You say,
> gcd(2/1,4) returns 1 "for simplicity" (!), because 2/1 is a rational.
> This is shockingly silly.
I don't know exactly how this came up, but if 2/1 is in a different
domain (rational)
from 2, (integer), then gcd should probably be 1, since any non-
zero
rational number divides any oth
I thought I would try to see if Sage builds in the upcoming version of
Ubuntu, which is still early in the development stages but I think the
compilers and other basic system stuff are stable. But there's some kind
of linker error:
../kernel/libkernel.a(mod_raw.o): In function `dynl_open':
/home/f
On 2/9/11 9:18 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Dox wrote:
Hi people!
I was wondering if there is a way of bundle two kind of different
objects together and define operations on them.
Suppose, I'd like to bundle a number and a string (3, Hello) and (4,
World!!)... th
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Dox wrote:
> Hi people!
>
> I was wondering if there is a way of bundle two kind of different
> objects together and define operations on them.
>
> Suppose, I'd like to bundle a number and a string (3, Hello) and (4,
> World!!)... then define and operation which mul
I would be interested. I have transferred all Cremona tables into
mongodb and am currently am try to redo code in sage to make it
compatible. There are a few more things related to elliptic curves I
am working on, so I will have plenty to work on during March.
Gagan
On Feb 8, 8:02 pm, William Stei
Hi people!
I was wondering if there is a way of bundle two kind of different
objects together and define operations on them.
Suppose, I'd like to bundle a number and a string (3, Hello) and (4,
World!!)... then define and operation which multiplies the numbers and
add strings, so the result is (1
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 06:24:46AM -0800, Niles wrote:
> So that my work and theirs can be fruitful, I have a suggestion for
> distributing the review effort. I know there are several other large
> patches languishing in need of review, and maybe the same idea can
> help them too.
>
> The suggest
On 02/ 9/11 07:21 AM, Emil Widmann wrote:
Is by "Sage-Windows port" meaning a "native" Windows application rather than
something based on Cygwin?
With Sage - Windows port I was meant the Cygwin port. Or at least any
port that is very easy to install (Windows Installer) and runs with
comparabl
en-source-software-apps-for-engineers/
Thanks!
-- William
>
>
> Best,
>
> Alba Collazo
>
> Co-founder, Blogineering
>
> __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5858 (20110209) __
>
> The message was checked b
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 04:46:52PM +0800, D. S. McNeil wrote:
> > Could you post an example [re: my whitespace issues --ed] to nail down
> > exactly what you're talking about?
>
> sage: s = 'for i in range(3):\n' + ' '*4 + 'print i\n'
> sage: # add extra space, such as can often happen in practice
On Feb 9, 9:46 am, "D. S. McNeil" wrote:
> >> (1) gcd is broken.http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10459
> [..]
> > I'm personally OK either way with this.
>
> IMO a*b = gcd(a,b)*lcm(a,b) should be maintained wherever possible.
> There are pari codes whose direct Sage equivalent silen
Hi @DSM!
On Feb 9, 4:53 am, koffie wrote:
> Hej Doug,
>
> Nice list of bugs. I was wondering, might you be interested in
> becoming a sage developer too?
+1
It's *really* not that hard :) I'd be happy to help you get started
too, and in particular you could let me know when you need a reviewer
Hej Doug,
Nice list of bugs. I was wondering, might you be interested in
becoming a sage developer to? It's really not that hard, and it sounds
to me that if you knew how to edit the source code of sage you would
be able to fix some of these bugs yourself, and become one of the
volunteers who make
> >> (1) gcd is broken.http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10459
> [..]
> > I'm personally OK either way with this.
>
> IMO a*b = gcd(a,b)*lcm(a,b) should be maintained wherever possible.
> There are pari codes whose direct Sage equivalent silently breaks for
> this reason, and I can't br
>> (1) gcd is broken. http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10459
[..]
> I'm personally OK either way with this.
IMO a*b = gcd(a,b)*lcm(a,b) should be maintained wherever possible.
There are pari codes whose direct Sage equivalent silently breaks for
this reason, and I can't bring myself to
20 matches
Mail list logo
