On 2/16/13 12:02 AM, David Roe wrote:
The two functions are doing something completely different: one is
generating a string representation that can be reinput into python, and
the other is generating a list of digits (base 2) for further
manipulation. I think our current behavior is perfectly a
The two functions are doing something completely different: one is
generating a string representation that can be reinput into python, and the
other is generating a list of digits (base 2) for further manipulation. I
think our current behavior is perfectly acceptable, though adding more
documentat
On 2/15/13 10:58 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
That doesn't play well with indexing:
sage: bin(-10)[3]
'1'
sage: bin(-10)[2]
'b'
No, you're right, but it is valid python still:
>>> -0b1010
-10
It seems to indicate that having a separate sign bit would make sense...
Jason
--
You received thi
That doesn't play well with indexing:
sage: bin(-10)[3]
'1'
sage: bin(-10)[2]
'b'
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 2/15/13 1:29 PM, Dan Drake wrote:
>>
>> This seems weird to me:
>>
>> sage: (-10).bits()
>> [0, -1, 0, -1]
>>
>> It makes it look like binary now includes -
On 2/15/13 1:29 PM, Dan Drake wrote:
This seems weird to me:
sage: (-10).bits()
[0, -1, 0, -1]
It makes it look like binary now includes -1 along with 0 and 1, making
it..ternary?
I guess that the bits() function is supposed to satisfy
x == sum(b*2^e for e, b in enumerate(x.bits()))
...bu
Fernando Perez put together this interesting page of IPython notebooks:
https://github.com/ipython/ipython/wiki/A-gallery-of-interesting-IPython-Notebooks
I thought you guys would have fun looking through some of them.
Thanks,
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 2013-02-15, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> It'd be a good idea to install some hooks/deprecation warnings to see
>> what remains to be done, but the goal of check_old_coerce is to make
>> these methods inaccessible to classes claim
Hi Robert,
On 2013-02-15, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> It'd be a good idea to install some hooks/deprecation warnings to see
> what remains to be done, but the goal of check_old_coerce is to make
> these methods inaccessible to classes claiming to use the new coercion
> model.
>
>> But would it seem
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
> This seems weird to me:
>
> sage: (-10).bits()
> [0, -1, 0, -1]
>
> It makes it look like binary now includes -1 along with 0 and 1, making
> it..ternary?
I can't think of a better (finite) definition that matches what is
expected for 10.bits()
This seems weird to me:
sage: (-10).bits()
[0, -1, 0, -1]
It makes it look like binary now includes -1 along with 0 and 1, making
it..ternary?
I guess that the bits() function is supposed to satisfy
x == sum(b*2^e for e, b in enumerate(x.bits()))
...but you have to interpret b as a regular
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:15:06 PM UTC, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> > Since I'm currently working myself through groups to get them off the
>> > old
>> > parent, I had some success with the following approach: Split the parent
>> > (say
On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:15:06 PM UTC, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > Since I'm currently working myself through groups to get them off the
> old
> > parent, I had some success with the following approach: Split the parent
> > (say, Ring) into and old and a new parent. They can both be called
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2013-02-15, Volker Braun wrote:
>> And nothing lasts as long as a temporary quick fix ;-)
>
> Very true.
>
> But when I look at ParentWithGens itself, it seems to me fine.
> ParentWithBase seems almost fine, except for
>
> cdef _
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> And nothing lasts as long as a temporary quick fix ;-)
So true... but otherwise we still wouldn't be on the new coercion
system at all yet.
> Since I'm currently working myself through groups to get them off the old
> parent, I had some succ
Hi!
On 2013-02-15, Volker Braun wrote:
> And nothing lasts as long as a temporary quick fix ;-)
Very true.
But when I look at ParentWithGens itself, it seems to me fine.
ParentWithBase seems almost fine, except for
cdef _coerce_c_impl(self,x):
check_old_coerce(self)
if not se
With sage 5.5:
sage: (abs(sin(x))^2).simplify_full()
sin(x)^2
Maybe not completely correct because, as you said, x could be a complex
number. However, I found it convenient.
With sage 5.6
sage: assume(x, 'real')
sage: (abs(sin(x))^2).simplify_full()
abs(sin(x))^2
For trigonometric
Does anyone happen to be going to the International Conference on
Technology in Collegiate Mathematics:
http://ictcm.pearsontc.net/
Phil Yasskin asked me this:
"Doug Meade, Matthew Barry and I are running a workshop on using
MathLex. This is pretty sterile unless you have a computation engine
And nothing lasts as long as a temporary quick fix ;-)
Since I'm currently working myself through groups to get them off the old
parent, I had some success with the following approach: Split the parent
(say, Ring) into and old and a new parent. They can both be called Ring as
long as they live
18 matches
Mail list logo
