On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:31:17 PM UTC-4, Benjamin Jones wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Roe >
> wrote:
> > I think this is a bug: the type of the result should be consistent.
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM, mmarco >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> There
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM, mmarco wrote:
> Is there some reason for this or is it a bug? Shouldn't the answer be,
> at least, a sage Integer and not a python int?
Returning a Sage Integer would be consistent with this:
sage: type(sqrt(1))
sage: type(sqrt(2))
Fredrik
--
You received t
On Oct 30, 2:58 pm, David Roe wrote:
> I think this is a bug: the type of the result should be consistent.
> David
Consistent doesn't mean constant. Functions like "sin" are generic
functions that dispatch on input type:
sin(1.2) should return a float, not a symbolic expression (that would
be un
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Roe wrote:
> I think this is a bug: the type of the result should be consistent.
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM, mmarco wrote:
>>
>> There is an inconsistency in the behaviour of the cosine function
>> sage: type(cos(1))
>>
>> sage: type(cos(
I think this is a bug: the type of the result should be consistent.
David
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM, mmarco wrote:
> There is an inconsistency in the behaviour of the cosine function
> sage: type(cos(1))
>
> sage: type(cos(pi))
>
> sage: type(cos(0))
>
>
> It also happens with the sine:
There is an inconsistency in the behaviour of the cosine function
sage: type(cos(1))
sage: type(cos(pi))
sage: type(cos(0))
It also happens with the sine:
sage: type(sin(0))
sage: type(sin(pi))
and the exponential:
sage: type(exp(0))
sage: type(exp(1))
the logarithm:
sage: type(log(1))
On 2012-10-30, Tom Boothby wrote:
> Oops, didn't see your reply before I posted. Not counting the empty
> graph is very very strange. At the very least OEIS needs to be
> updated to have a proper definition to warn people that the empty
> graph is excluded.
it's a tricky question whether groups
Thank you, Jernej, for bringing up this issue. Turns out I've been
lazy, and hadn't carefully thought about degenerate cases. The line
graph is a bad test because the claw and triangle have the same line
graph... the disconnected pair (claw + C_3) has a vertex-transitive
line graph! The followin
Oops, didn't see your reply before I posted. Not counting the empty
graph is very very strange. At the very least OEIS needs to be
updated to have a proper definition to warn people that the empty
graph is excluded.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On 2012-10-30, Jerne
On 30 October 2012 13:38, Charles Bouillaguet
wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Marco Streng wrote:
>
>
>> 2012/10/28 Charles Bouillaguet :
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> While playing with the quotient of a polynomial ring with an ideal, I
>>> encountered several glitches.
>>>
>>> *) Trying to compute
No, arc-transitivity is quite easy:
G.to_directed().line_graph().is_vertex_transitive()
Are you saying that the graph with 6 vertices and no edges is not a
graph? What about the graphs on 1,2,..5 vertices and no edges?
Because those are all counted in OEIS. Even on Mathworld, it says
"Counting e
On Oct 29, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Marco Streng wrote:
> 2012/10/28 Charles Bouillaguet :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While playing with the quotient of a polynomial ring with an ideal, I
>> encountered several glitches.
>>
>> *) Trying to compute the inverse of something which is not invertible.
>>
>> I know
On 2012-10-30, Jernej Azarija wrote:
> --=_Part_1698_7171753.1351582604933
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Monday, 29 October 2012 22:49:03 UTC+1, Tom wrote:
>>
>> Here's a list of 21 edge-transitive graphs on 6 vertices.
>>
[...]
>> They've all got 6 vertices. They're
Can I ask again for a review of this straight-forward upgrade:
On 2012-10-05 10:45, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> A straight-forward upgrade of PARI to version 2.5.3 (released a few days
> ago). Please review:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13534
>
--
You received this message becaus
On Monday, 29 October 2012 22:49:03 UTC+1, Tom wrote:
>
> Here's a list of 21 edge-transitive graphs on 6 vertices.
>
> "E???" # 6 K_1
> "E_??" # K_2 + 4
> "Eo??" # S_2 + 3
> "Ew??" # K_3 + 3
> "Es??" # S_3 + 2
> "Es_?" # S_4 + 1
> "Esa?" # S_5
> "E`??" # 2 K_2 + 2
> "Er??" # C_4 + 2
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
