Re: [sage-devel] sagenb.org is running Sage 5.4

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 3:18:50 AM UTC-7, jason wrote: > > On 10/2/13 12:44 PM, William Stein wrote: > > Yes. I updated sfa to 5.11, and there don't seem to be any problems, > > so it should be straightforward to switch the symbolic link for > > everyone else too. > > > > I'll try to do

Re: [sage-devel] imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

Hello, from the perspective of the Riemann sphere it's a bit odd since > CC(infinity,0), CC(0, infinity) and CC(infinity, infinity) are all distinct > in sage, giving us 3 different complex infinities. > Here is another case of unexpected behaviour: sage: CC(I)+CC(Infinity)==CC(2*I)+CC(Infini

Re: [sage-devel] imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

Hello, RR isn't named "Real numbers"; it is named "real field with 53 bits > precision" > And, fair enough, the docstring of RR starts as follows: An approximation to the field of real numbers using floating point numbers with any specified precision. Answers derived from calculations

Re: [sage-devel] imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

> > > So I would say that the current behaviour of Sage (Infinity in RR giving > > True and any similar suggestion that infinity is a real number) is > > mathematically wrong and must be changed. It also contradicts the > > documentation of the infinity "ring" (in which Sage's "Infinity" objec

Re: [sage-devel] imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I guess my follow up question would be do we want infinity to be real in >>> this sense or is that just a byproduct of its implementation? I don't >>> know >>> all the uses for infinity that other sage users h

Re: [sage-devel] imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

>> I guess my follow up question would be do we want infinity to be real in >> this sense or is that just a byproduct of its implementation? I don't >> know >> all the uses for infinity that other sage users have, but certainly from >> the perspective of the Riemann sphere it's a bit odd since >>

Re: [sage-devel] imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

Hello, > I guess my follow up question would be do we want infinity to be real in > this sense or is that just a byproduct of its implementation? I don't know > all the uses for infinity that other sage users have, but certainly from > the perspective of the Riemann sphere it's a bit odd sin

Re: [sage-devel] imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

Thanks for this clarification. I guess my follow up question would be do we want infinity to be real in this sense or is that just a byproduct of its implementation? I don't know all the uses for infinity that other sage users have, but certainly from the perspective of the Riemann sphere it's

[sage-devel] Re: imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

> > Out of curiosity, I decided to ask sage what it thought the imaginary part > of infinity was. I'm not quite sure that this should return 0. > Mathematica returns Indeterminate, which seems like a better answer to me. > It is strange that infinity can apparently be converted into a comp

Re: [sage-devel] imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

On 10/03/2013 11:54 AM, Greg Laun wrote: > Out of curiosity, I decided to ask sage what it thought the imaginary > part of infinity was. I'm not quite sure that this should return 0. > Mathematica returns Indeterminate, which seems like a better answer to me. > > Has this been discussed elsewhe

[sage-devel] Re: motivation: here's one reason your contributions to Sage matter...

john_perry_usm writes: > On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 1:42:43 AM UTC-5, Keshav Kini wrote: > > But as far as I know, Sage is not proof-aware in any way. I've > never > heard theorem-proving people talk about making use of existing > computer > algebra systems and I can't imagin

[sage-devel] Re: motivation: here's one reason your contributions to Sage matter...

rjf writes: > On Monday, September 30, 2013 11:42:43 PM UTC-7, Keshav Kini wrote: > But as far as I know, Sage is not proof-aware in any way. > > Why would you necessarily know about this? I don't know, why would I? > I am well aware > that Maxima, a component of Sage, has been used to g

[sage-devel] Re: How can we improve 3d graphics in sage?

Sounds great. I agree with the basic premise that the lifetime of the GPU data needs to be coupled to the lifetime of the Python object. On the Python side, we then implement a mutable interface. Changes in Python (like rotations, but e.g. also changing a sphere radius) are propagated to the GP

[sage-devel] Re: How can we improve 3d graphics in sage?

On 9/17/13 5:19 AM, Volker Braun wrote: On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:11:41 AM UTC+1, Robert Bradshaw wrote: I'm surprised no one's yet mentioned https://plus.google.com/115360165819500279592/posts/WkY7mQ6ju2u which

[sage-devel] imag(CC(infinity)) is 0?

Out of curiosity, I decided to ask sage what it thought the imaginary part of infinity was. I'm not quite sure that this should return 0. Mathematica returns Indeterminate, which seems like a better answer to me. Has this been discussed elsewhere? Thanks, Greg -- You received this message

[sage-devel] Re: How can we improve 3d graphics in sage?

Hey everyone, I wanted to give a brief update. We decided that the most important thing right now is to have graphics classes where the transform(), rotate() and related functions return matrices that can be passed to the graphics card rather than returning the matrix applied to the object. T

Re: [sage-devel] Re: motivation: here's one reason your contributions to Sage matter...

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 12:17:18 AM UTC-7, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > For what my department was > doing, MATLAB was just as useful, and much more cost-effective. > Then obviously you should not be using mathematica. You might consider using Octave which is similar to Matlab but free,

Re: [sage-devel] sagenb.org is running Sage 5.4

On 10/2/13 12:44 PM, William Stein wrote: Yes. I updated sfa to 5.11, and there don't seem to be any problems, so it should be straightforward to switch the symbolic link for everyone else too. I'll try to do that this week. I updated public *.sagenb.org servers to 5.11 Thanks, Jason -- Y

[sage-devel] Re: reviewing git patch

I don't know what the roadmap for experimental spkgs is. Also pull them into the git repo? Whats the difference between optional and experimental? The new spkg layut is to have the upstream tarball (or something very close to it, just with deleted useless crap) in $SAGE_ROOT/upstream and the bui

[sage-devel] Re: Products of permutations use nonstandard order of operation

Hi there, I'm new to sage-devel. So I apologize in advance if I say things that make no sense. The order of the product of two permutations in sage struck me as well, as many others, no doubt. As has been said, it does not really matter which order has been chosen, as soon as the other order

Re: [sage-devel] Re: motivation: here's one reason your contributions to Sage matter...

On 2 October 2013 05:42, john_perry_usm wrote: > On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 1:42: > He's shown off some pretty impressive stuff. If I could afford Mathematica > (in terms of energy and time as well as money) I might be interested in > learning about it. It is expensive. Wolfram Research's prices