On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Jori Mantysalo wrote:
Here is an example where mpfr-gamma and pari-gamma give different results:
Duh, forget this one: pari-gamma gives Inf.
--
Jori Mäntysalo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe
Here is an example where mpfr-gamma and pari-gamma give different
results:
x=1
for i in range(1,400):
x=x*1.101
if gamma(ComplexField(prec=1000)(x))-gamma(x) <> 0:
print x
outputs
4.71129468628944e16
--
Jori Mäntysalo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
2014-02-13 0:38 UTC+01:00, William Stein :
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> David Smith just pointed this out: arcsec(float(.1)) throws an error that
>> doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's outside of the domain, but it should
>> probably deal with this by returning NaN or
Hi there,
As far as I know there is no arbitrary precision within scipy/numpy.
On the other hand scipy/numpy is shipped with Sage and if you do for
example
sage: m = matrix(RDF, [[2,0],[1,0]])
the matrix m is (in the backend) a numpy matrix stored under
m._numpy_matrix. Sadly you can not access
Salut Aladin !
Words currently do not fit well with category... (for example they do
not inherit from parent). But there is #12224 that I hope to finish at
Sage days 57. By the way do you plan to come ?
For your problem, a stupid strategy of the conversion mechanism in
Sage from X to Y is to ask
> sage: W([1,2]) in ZZ
> ---
> NotImplementedError Traceback (most recent call last)
> in ()
> > 1 W([Integer(1),Integer(2)]) in ZZ
> [...]
>
> NotImplementedError: please implement _an_element_ for W
Onto it!
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:43:04 AM UTC+5:30, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Dear Amit,
>
> Your email was received, but unfortunately there are not tons of people
> creating accounts and it has not been responded to yet. Unfortunately, I
> can't do it now either :-( but I hope someone wil
Dear Amit,
Your email was received, but unfortunately there are not tons of people
creating accounts and it has not been responded to yet. Unfortunately, I
can't do it now either :-( but I hope someone will soon and do have time to
send a quick "bump" about it!
Best,
- kcrisman
On Wednesday,
Hello,
Hello,
I have setup sage and have gone through some of the issues. I have
also gone through the Developer Guide (
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/index.html) but there seems to be
requirement of creating a account by sending in the details to the
specified google gro
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> Hey Andrew,
>I inputed the wrong branch on http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15668and
> then trac would not load the page. I worked around this by uploading a
> branch with the typo, but the issue with trac is still there.
>
Ok, this s
Hello everyone,
here is a bug that is maybe related to coercion system to Integers in sage:
sage: W = Words(4)
sage: W([1,2])
word: 12
sage: W([1,2]) in QQ
False
sage: W([1,2]) in ZZ
---
NotImplementedError
Oh, FEM brings me back to my master's days. Programming the FEM can
sometimes be painful. Perhaps I'm not the best one to ask about this, but
you can use implement in python using Numpy and Scipy...and then run it in
Sage.
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:52:37 PM UTC-5, Chris Gorman wrote:
kcrisman and Rick,
I guess that I am wondering if there is a group that is devoted to
contributing to the numerical aspects of Sage and, if so, what they are
focusing on. I know that I would be interested in helping implement is FEM
and arbitrary-precision numerical integration. I would also li
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> David Smith just pointed this out: arcsec(float(.1)) throws an error that
> doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's outside of the domain, but it should
> probably deal with this by returning NaN or something rather than a type
> error. This came
David Smith just pointed this out: arcsec(float(.1)) throws an error
that doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's outside of the domain, but it
should probably deal with this by returning NaN or something rather than
a type error. This came up when David was trying to plot arcsec.
On a related no
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Zimmermann Paul
wrote:
>Dear Jori,
>
>> And reason is of course clear, as Fredrik Johansson wrote "If you cache
>> Bernoulli numbers, - -".
>
> in fact there is another reason: the MPFR code computes the Bernoulli numbers
> exactly, as integers B(2n)*(2n+1)
On 2014-02-12 19:36, ref...@uncg.edu wrote:
Thank you for responses. It seems that the best solution would be to
use pari in the way that Dr. Stein said earlier.
MPFR does have one important advantage: it has a *guaranteed* error
bound. With PARI, you never really know how precise the answer is
Dear Jori,
> And reason is of course clear, as Fredrik Johansson wrote "If you cache
> Bernoulli numbers, - -".
in fact there is another reason: the MPFR code computes the Bernoulli numbers
exactly, as integers B(2n)*(2n+1)!, whereas Pari/GP computes a floating-point
approximation. For 10
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jori Mantysalo wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, William Stein wrote:
>
>> 1. It is *NOT* true.Sage just directly calls the PARI C library,
>> which is always loaded on startup of Sage.
>
>
> OK, good (or bad, which way one wants it to be...).
>
>
>> It's pretty l
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, William Stein wrote:
1. It is *NOT* true.Sage just directly calls the PARI C library,
which is always loaded on startup of Sage.
OK, good (or bad, which way one wants it to be...).
It's pretty likely that when the line of code in question was written
(prob in 2005 or
Chris,
I'm not sure what you are looking for. But, I'm planning on submitting
some personal algorithms to sage. Sometimes I had to make some
improvements to built-in functions to suit my purpose. For example,
numerical integration built into sage is not arbitrary precision...which I
had to
And welcome to Sage!
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:09:23 PM UTC-5, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Does anyone have know who is working on improving the numerical methods in
>> Sage? I am beginning my graduate program in numerical analysis and would
>> like to use Sage for my work and research.
>>
>
> C
>
> Does anyone have know who is working on improving the numerical methods in
> Sage? I am beginning my graduate program in numerical analysis and would
> like to use Sage for my work and research.
>
Can you be more specific? There has been a lot of work getting Sage to use
mpmath for evalua
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Zimmermann Paul
wrote:
>William,
>
> thank you for putting me in cc.
>
>> From: William Stein
>> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 06:01:29 -0800
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:55 AM, wrote:
>> > Ah, I see what you mean. If that's the case then I understand. How
Thank you for responses. It seems that the best solution would be to use
pari in the way that Dr. Stein said earlier.
Again, I'm new to the development process and would like to contribute to
sage. Should I submit a ticket and write my own patch and submit it now?
I'm not sure how developmen
William,
thank you for putting me in cc.
> From: William Stein
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 06:01:29 -0800
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:55 AM, wrote:
> > Ah, I see what you mean. If that's the case then I understand. How does
> > one find out if this is true?
>
> 1. It is *NOT* true.
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:01:29 PM UTC+1, William wrote:
>
> 2. Thanks for clarifying your original question. It's surprising that
> MPFR is a full *order of magnitude* slower than PARI at computing
> gamma on real input.It's pretty likely that when the line of code
> in question was
Does anyone have know who is working on improving the numerical methods in
Sage? I am beginning my graduate program in numerical analysis and would
like to use Sage for my work and research.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To uns
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:55 AM, wrote:
> Ah, I see what you mean. If that's the case then I understand. How does
> one find out if this is true?
1. It is *NOT* true.Sage just directly calls the PARI C library,
which is always loaded on startup of Sage.
2. Thanks for clarifying your origi
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, ref...@uncg.edu wrote:
Ah, I see what you mean. If that's the case then I understand. How does
one find out if this is true?
In general memory usage is complicated to even define on Linux. However,
a quick test
print get_memory_usage()
gamma(3.14159)
print get_memory_
On 8 Feb 2014 05:17, "kcrisman" wrote:
>
> So, in the Sage/GAP/etc. urban legend, some pathetic PhD student proves a
theorem, and then upon graduating can't afford the software it's
implemented in. Nice argument for open source. I have no reason to
disbelieve it, and have seen very similar quote
Ah, I see what you mean. If that's the case then I understand. How does
one find out if this is true?
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:46:21 AM UTC-5, Jori Mantysalo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, ref...@uncg.edu wrote:
>
> > I don't understand what you mean. The real and complex fields ar
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, ref...@uncg.edu wrote:
I don't understand what you mean. The real and complex fields are loaded
upon start up. It seems as though time testing that if the user wishes to
compute gamma(x) for real x, he would achieve a faster result by changing x
into a complex number and th
I don't understand what you mean. The real and complex fields are loaded
upon start up. It seems as though time testing that if the user wishes to
compute gamma(x) for real x, he would achieve a faster result by changing x
into a complex number and then computing gamma(x). I don't know how to
34 matches
Mail list logo
