Having Ring derive from parent_old.Parent was the intermediate state Robert
put in after Dev Days 1 so that we could gradually transition rings to the
new coercion model (after deciding doing the whole transition in one step
was a bad idea). Of course, it has been almost 5 years and we're not done
This is not a bug, because x can be any complex number :
sage: x=CDF(4+2*I)
sage: abs(sin(x))**2
13.7268664349
sage: sin(x)**2
2.48667440045 + 13.4997523143*I
Le jeudi 14 février 2013 16:21:29 UTC+1, Julius a écrit :
>
> I think (abs(sin(x))^2).simplify_full() should render sin(x)^2. Thi
Thanks! This does explain what I was seeing, I forgot that the "new"
variables for the fraction field ring may really be new, so as you say, the
substitution wasn't being done.
I have no problem using call() in what I was doing, but I couldn't figure
out the behavior of .subs.
--
You received
On Feb 14, 7:27 am, Ben Hutz wrote:
> R.=PolynomialRing(QQbar,3)
> Y=(x^4*y + 2*c*x^2*y^3 - x*y^4 + (c^2 + c)*y^5)/(x^2*y - x*y^2 +c*y^3)
In addition, this doesn't simplify, whereas over QQ sage recognizes
the denominator divides the numerator (you still get a fraction field
element, though). Tha
On Feb 14, 7:27 am, Ben Hutz wrote:
> I seem to be getting a weird result when I use .subs over QQbar:
>
> R.=PolynomialRing(QQbar,3)
> Y=(x^4*y + 2*c*x^2*y^3 - x*y^4 + (c^2 + c)*y^5)/(x^2*y - x*y^2 +c*y^3)
> fm=[x^2 + c*y^2, y^2]
> W1=Y.subs({x:fm[0],y:fm[1]})
The rest of the results are as they
I think (abs(sin(x))^2).simplify_full() should render sin(x)^2. This is not
the case in sage 5.6 even with the assumption assume(x, 'real'). Is this a
[known] bug?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group an
I seem to be getting a weird result when I use .subs over QQbar:
R.=PolynomialRing(QQbar,3)
Y=(x^4*y + 2*c*x^2*y^3 - x*y^4 + (c^2 + c)*y^5)/(x^2*y - x*y^2 +c*y^3)
fm=[x^2 + c*y^2, y^2]
W1=Y.subs({x:fm[0],y:fm[1]})
Yn=Y.numerator().subs({x:fm[0],y:fm[1]})
Yd=Y.denominator().subs({x:fm[0],y:fm[1]})
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:38:31 AM UTC-5, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:25:39 AM UTC+1, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Jean-Pierre Flori
>> wrote:
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> > Cannot OS X run a VM?
>>
>> Sure, but Sage does have a na
Well *really* somebody should change Ring to not derive
from parent_old.Parent. Somebody used both old and new parents as base to
avoid having to do this.
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 1:15:24 PM UTC, Simon King wrote:
>
> sage: Ring.mro()
> [, 'sage.structure.parent_gens.ParentWithGens'>,
Hi Volker,
On 2013-02-14, Volker Braun wrote:
> --=_Part_664_5536941.1360842751143
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 6:43:32 AM UTC, Simon King wrote:
>
>> If one implements a new parent P and "forgets" to override
>> sage.structure.parent_gens
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 6:43:32 AM UTC, Simon King wrote:
> If one implements a new parent P and "forgets" to override
> sage.structure.parent_gens.ParentWithGens.gen, and then calls P.gen(),
> one will usually see a very disturbing error.
The solution is to not derive from old-style P
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:53 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> Hi! Thanks to very hard work by Ivan Andrus, we have Sage double-clicking
> sws files on Mac. We just need one more test to make it complete.
>
> If you DO have OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion but have NOT ever made something that
> makes sws files open
On Monday, February 11, 2013 10:57:12 PM UTC+1, William wrote:
>
>
> The mission statement of the Sage project is: "Create a viable free
> open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Matlab, and Mathematica."
> I came up with this statement one year after starting the project, and
> have stuck wi
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:25:39 AM UTC+1, mabshoff wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Jean-Pierre Flori
> >
> wrote:
> >
>
>
>
> > Cannot OS X run a VM?
>
> Sure, but Sage does have a native 32 bit as well as 64 bit OSX port,
> so aside from the lag of supporting a new OSX
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
> Cannot OS X run a VM?
Sure, but Sage does have a native 32 bit as well as 64 bit OSX port,
so aside from the lag of supporting a new OSX major release there
never is the need for one. Or did I just not get your point?
Cheers,
Mich
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:55:50 PM UTC+1, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Yeah, I would think so, too. I have not been to a mathematical conference
> in about three years, but my guess would be that OSX has become even more
> prominent amongst researchers and Windows in general is becoming less and
16 matches
Mail list logo
