On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:39 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>> Just for fun, here's what the TIOBE-using-only-google results are for
>> our niche world of math software:
>>
>> language hits for +"language programming"
>>
>> Octave 8320
>> Sage 3180
>> GAP 2780
>> Singular
I just sent this to William, when I meant to send it to sage-devel.
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Kirkby
Date: 17 February 2011 07:39
Subject: Re: [sage-devel] Rapid growth in Python popularity
To: William Stein
On 17 February 2011 07:05, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed,
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> NOTE: Looking at results, GAP has way more false positives than Sage,
> since "gap" is a common word that can occur in the context of
> programming, e.g. "Bridging the Gap: Programming Sensor Networks with
> Applications" is on the first p
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 02/16/11 03:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/16/11 03:31 AM, Eviatar wrote:
Hello,
I have been monitoring TIOBE, a programming language pop
What's amazing is that on IRC the most talked about language is
Python. Next is Haskell. Go figure!
On Feb 17, 12:08 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On 02/16/11 03:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Feb 16, 201
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 02/16/11 03:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/16/11 03:31 AM, Eviatar wrote:
Hello,
I have been monitoring TIOBE, a programming language pop
On 02/16/11 05:29 PM, Eviatar wrote:
Yes, exactly. I don't think many are looking to learn LabView over the
internet (since it serves such a specific purpose), but it is used in
the industry, something that TIOBE can't measure.
Well, they could if they searched for job adverts on job sites. B
On 02/16/11 03:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
On 02/16/11 03:31 AM, Eviatar wrote:
Hello,
I have been monitoring TIOBE, a programming language popularity index.
Python has been experiencing extremely fast growth in the last few
months, r
On Dec 29 2010, 11:50 pm, Rob Beezer wrote:
> I'd like to improve the current state of the linear algebra code over
> CDF (and by extension, over RDF).
> [...] I'm trolling for anything else folks can send me that might
> help: advice, informative Trac tickets, potential pitfalls, secret
> desi
You're right!
Thanks!
Alex
On 16 fév, 17:42, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Alexandre Blondin Massé
>
> wrote:
> > Maybe it's worth including such a package in Sage if it's not already
> > done?
>
> I believe it's included in matplotlib as matplotlib.pyparsing.
>
> --Mi
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Alexandre Blondin Massé
wrote:
> Maybe it's worth including such a package in Sage if it's not already
> done?
I believe it's included in matplotlib as matplotlib.pyparsing.
--Mike
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsub
>
> > In that case I would think specialized functions would be better, such
> > as palindromes(u). For parsing, could you not use regular expressions?
>
> I guess regular expressions would be ok, but more work is needed.
> Ideally, I would like to delegate that work to a module that does all
> the
Mike is correct about your first question: your confusion is between
coercion maps and conversion maps.
The function you're looking for is _mpoly_base_ring, which is written in
sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring_generic.pyx
David
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 13:06, mmarco wrote:
> I already
On 16 fév, 15:52, Eviatar wrote:
> Another option would be to use Sage's existing symbolic capabilities.
> For example:
>
> sage: solve(u*v==log(u*v), u)
> [u == log(u*v)/v]
The equations I'm handling are on words, not on numbers. More
precisely, the * operation is the concatenation (it has a mon
On 16 fév, 15:47, Eviatar wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm wondering why you would want to include it like this; it doesn't
> follow Python syntax. "=" is for assignment, and this: "u * v = phi(u
> * v)" would return a syntax error in Python. I suppose you mean "=="?
This would be a new syntax between sin
Another option would be to use Sage's existing symbolic capabilities.
For example:
sage: solve(u*v==log(u*v), u)
[u == log(u*v)/v]
--
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
So we see that Maxima, GSL, Scipy, and mpmath ALL can evaluate this
numerically inside Sage :-)
On Feb 16, 3:17 pm, Eviatar wrote:
> Can it find the integral as log(2)*pi/8, though?
Apparently Maxima does not simplify the result enough for Sage to
apply n() - probably because it doesn't know wha
Hello!
I'm wondering why you would want to include it like this; it doesn't
follow Python syntax. "=" is for assignment, and this: "u * v = phi(u
* v)" would return a syntax error in Python. I suppose you mean "=="?
In that case I would think specialized functions would be better, such
as palindro
Can it find the integral as log(2)*pi/8, though?
--
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 at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: ht
Hi, everyone!
I'm interested in including a Sage module that allows one to handle
systems of equations on words. For instance, if one wants to find all
solutions of the equation u = ~(u) (where ~ means the reversal of the
word, i.e. rewriting it in the opposite order), one should get the
palindrom
sage: import scipy.integrate
sage: scipy.integrate.quad(lambda x:log(1+x)/(x^2+1),0,1)
(0.27219826128795022, 3.0220077694481673e-15)
A Ch
--
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...@googlegroup
On Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:29:59 AM UTC-8, achrzesz wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16 Lut, 18:54, Marshall Buck wrote:
> > In the Putnam solutions by Manjul Bhargava, Kiran Kedlaya, et al, it is
> > observed that the definite integral
> >
> > integrate(log(1+x)/(x^2+1),(x,0,1))
> >
> > can be
Rob,
I'm not sure if this is relevant but you might like to check out the
work going on in sympy (physics/quantum/...) I have been keeping an
eye on this (it is now in the main branch but not opened up yet). My
motivation like the authors of the above is in quantum (computation)
but there is an Hi
On Feb 16, 1:29 pm, achrzesz wrote:
> On 16 Lut, 18:54, Marshall Buck wrote:
>
> > In the Putnam solutions by Manjul Bhargava, Kiran Kedlaya, et al, it is
> > observed that the definite integral
>
> > integrate(log(1+x)/(x^2+1),(x,0,1))
>
> > can be evaluated successfully by mathematica. This
On 16 Lut, 18:54, Marshall Buck wrote:
> In the Putnam solutions by Manjul Bhargava, Kiran Kedlaya, et al, it is
> observed that the definite integral
>
> integrate(log(1+x)/(x^2+1),(x,0,1))
>
> can be evaluated successfully by mathematica. This is true, and the answer
> is log(2)*pi/8
> sag
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:06 PM, mmarco wrote:
> I already new all that, but my question would be: "why
> S.has_coerce_map_from(R) returns False?"
Because S(r) is doing a "converion" rather than a "coercion".
Coercion is implicit and happens when doing arithmetic.
S.has_convert_map_from(R) should
In the Putnam solutions by Manjul Bhargava, Kiran Kedlaya, et al, it is
observed that the definite integral
integrate(log(1+x)/(x^2+1),(x,0,1))
can be evaluated successfully by mathematica. This is true, and the answer
is log(2)*pi/8
sage/maxima, however, returns:
sage: integrate(log(1+x
I already new all that, but my question would be: "why
S.has_coerce_map_from(R) returns False?"
And the second question is "is there a command (or an easy way to
implement it) to recover QQ[x,y,z] from QQ[x][y][z] or any other
similar situation?"
I know how to deal with these cases by hand, but i
mmarco a écrit :
Dealing with polynomial ringsi found something that seems incorrect
sage: R=QQ['x','y']
sage: S=QQ['x']['y']
Shouldn't there be natural coercions from rings like QQ[x,y][z] or
QQ[x][y][z] to QQ[x,y,z] and vice-versa?
One easy way to coerce is Domain("the-expression")
Yes, exactly. I don't think many are looking to learn LabView over the
internet (since it serves such a specific purpose), but it is used in
the industry, something that TIOBE can't measure.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, se
Dealing with polynomial ringsi found something that seems incorrect
sage: R=QQ['x','y']
sage: S=QQ['x']['y']
sage: R.has_coerce_map_from(S)
True
sage: S.has_coerce_map_from(R)
False
Even if both rings are naturally isomorphic. Moreover,
the .polynomial(y) method gives preciselly the natural map f
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 02/16/11 03:31 AM, Eviatar wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been monitoring TIOBE, a programming language popularity index.
>> Python has been experiencing extremely fast growth in the last few
>> months, rising to fourth place from sev
On 02/16/11 03:31 AM, Eviatar wrote:
Hello,
I have been monitoring TIOBE, a programming language popularity index.
Python has been experiencing extremely fast growth in the last few
months, rising to fourth place from seventh in a year, just behind
Java, C, and C++. It has also experienced the m
33 matches
Mail list logo
