On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:10:24 PM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> sage.structure.parent.Parent.__getattr__ claims to look on Parent and on
> self._category.parent_class for attributes.
>
Moreover, it makes me wonder why we even bother with dynamic classes:
sage: [C.__getattribute__ for C in
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:43:36 PM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
>
> It surprises me that the MPolynomialRing_generic instance does have an
> __init_extra__ attribute. Where does that come from? does it get supplied
> by some custom get somewhere?
>
Yes, it does:
sage.structure.parent.Paren
Implications?
Well, if you want to make Magma V2.20 free, just get a copy from China.
Or Mathematica.
etc.
The people who break the licensing code might also insert malware, so you
might not want to run it on an internet-connected computer. And you might
want to be secretive about your little cr
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:32:44 PM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> It would be good to identify why this isn't giving problems on a cdef
> class. The code that triggers the problem sits in
> sage.categories.algebras.Algebras.ParentMethods.__init_extra__ so the ease
> with which you can tr
On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 13:53:17 UTC, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Strange subject line, right? But read this post from ask.sagemath:
> +++
>
> thank you very much!
>
> better a notebook servers to China,there are at least 600.000.000 people
> in internet.
>
> many kinds of Python books in China boo
Hi Peter,
On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 16:53:43 UTC, Peter Bruin wrote:
>
> Is the default choice of the algorithm the right one?
>> One can see that
>> sage: A.determinant(algorithm="hessenberg")
>> 16801.7979988558
>> is quite good...
>>
>
> The PARI documentation of the function charpoly()
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:47:47 PM UTC-8, Simon King wrote:
>
> I don't understand what is the problem with the Python class. Please
> enlighten me!
>
I don't either, but I'll share some of my observations from the traceback.
The libsingular init calls as a first thing
MPolynomialRing_gene
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that for me Peter.
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:41:24 AM UTC-8, Peter Bruin wrote:
>
> Hi Travis,
>
> so it looks like the 0*O(x^20) is just suppressed from the output in the
>> (formal) power series ring.
>>
>
> If you mean that this is suppressed when printi
Thanks Travis, so there is coercion already. Now I think it natural to also
have coercion from the polynomial fractions to power series, or at least
have an expand() member function with a precision parameter and coercion in
case of addition with some bigoh, see
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/1569
Hi Dima,
Is the default choice of the algorithm the right one?
> One can see that
> sage: A.determinant(algorithm="hessenberg")
> 16801.7979988558
> is quite good...
>
The PARI documentation of the function charpoly() says: "If flag=2, uses
the Hessenberg form. Assumes that the base ring is a
Hi Travis,
so it looks like the 0*O(x^20) is just suppressed from the output in the
> (formal) power series ring.
>
If you mean that this is suppressed when printing FPS(f): no, actually
FPS(f) has infinite precision, even though its parent FPS has a finite
default precision. Only when comput
Hi Ralf,
I understand precision as being independent from element properties (as it
> is in Pari).
>
In Sage, there are two kinds of precision: the precision of an individual
element and the default precision of the power series ring. The same power
series ring can contain elements that are r
May be software piracy is not the problem (or there are other problems).
Consider for example scilab, which is a free replacement for Matlab (at
least partially): it has a huge success in China, even if it is very
easy to get "non official" versions of matlab for only some Yuans.
But Scilab is qui
It would not have it's inverse in the subring. You need an infinite number
of terms to express (1 - x)^-1 = 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + ... (by using
multiplication as 1/(1 - x) is formally a rational function).
Currently we have the following behavior in sage:
sage: R. = QQ[]
sage: f = 1 - x; f
-x + 1
I will abstain from the type hierarchy. I need to have a better grip on
rings. Sorry for the time you wasted.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage
If polynomials were a subring of power series then 1-x would have an
inverse. Who says it has not?
(Do not misunderstand me please, I simply don't know)
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:49:01 AM UTC-8, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>>
>> While the rin
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:49:01 AM UTC-8, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>
> While the ring type hierarchy does not reflect that polynomials are power
> series, you can have a power series without bigoh which is pratically a
> polynomial but, being a power series, has much less member functions
> av
I understand precision as being independent from element properties (as it
is in Pari). Note also that R.random_element() always has O(x^20) so a
fixed precision is already implemented.
​John is right that I see polynomials as a subring to power series. I would
not be able to give references to th
Surely all Ralf meant was that R[X] is a subring of R[[X]], i.e. some
elements of R[[X]] are exact, just as some decimal numbers like 0.25
are exact (in binary), and just as we might want to define a real
number as having *exactly* the value 0.25 and not just 0.25 +
O(10^-1000) one might want to co
I'll take care of it
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:22:45 AM UTC, Erik Massop wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
>
> Getting a 401 Authorization Required at http://trac.sagemath.org/login
> I punch in my username (emassop) and password (from the latest
> password-reset e-mail). This does not let me in
Thank you, Ralf, for considering ideas how to improve Sage.
I can't, however, agree with this particular idea. Think of coercion. You
have a polynomial, coerce it into the power series ring, and then? Choose
the precision = degree + 1? How could that be a ring homomorpism. You would
sacrifice s
Is the default choice of the algorithm the right one?
One can see that
sage: A.determinant(algorithm="hessenberg")
16801.7979988558
is quite good...
On Monday, 20 January 2014 18:10:43 UTC, Peter Bruin wrote:
>
> Would it be proper to autoconvert matrices over RR to RDF in case of the
>> default
While the ring type hierarchy does not reflect that polynomials are power
series, you can have a power series without bigoh which is pratically a
polynomial but, being a power series, has much less member functions
available.
I think Sage shouldn't allow a zero bigoh term in power series. It sh
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:10:03 -0800 (PST)
Volker Braun wrote:
> http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15699
Since I'm currently unable to login to trac, I'll respond here:
Since it is unlikely that scanf will succeed after having failed once
(since it is then stuck somewhere in the middle of 0e+00) th
Dear list,
Getting a 401 Authorization Required at http://trac.sagemath.org/login
I punch in my username (emassop) and password (from the latest
password-reset e-mail). This does not let me in. Can someone
help me with this? Do other people have the same problem? Maybe
only after having reset the
I am not sure about my abilities to solve bugs, but i would sure like to
try. My problem is that i need a long paperwork to go to USA, so i cannot
attend on short notice.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this
26 matches
Mail list logo
