I think that people who never wrote symbolic integration algorithms
underestimate the work required (this is also true in other areas, for
example simplification, UI, etc.). I believe that the current symbolic
integration implementations are good enough whatever you choose in Maxima,
Axiom flav
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:01 PM, rjf wrote:
> People have been working on computer programs for integration since about
> 1961. There are
> at least 8 PhD theses on the topic.
>
> If you think there is "low hanging fruit" like writing a better
> simplification program, or
> using binary search
Please feel free to forward to people who may be interested.
Sage Days 87
Burlington, Vermont
July 17-22, 2017
This workshop will be primarily project based, focused on improving p-adics
in Sage and the L-functions and modular forms database (www.lmfdb.org). We
aim to have a substantial number o
People have been working on computer programs for integration since about
1961. There are
at least 8 PhD theses on the topic.
If you think there is "low hanging fruit" like writing a better
simplification program, or
using binary search instead of pattern matching, or something else you just
"implemented on the Sage side" as opposed to in notebooks? I would very
much be in favour of this so that the difference between code behaviour in
different environments is as small as possible!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:03:05 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> surely you can do this, but it seems to be harder to certify if a number
> is zero or not.
>
Exactly. That's the idea of Allan's approach: rather than tracking these
questions in characteristic 0, you do it in a finite fi
Eric Gourgoulhon and I were discussing the possibility of making the
default display for the (Jupyter) notebooks be latex, and we decided that
this might not be a good way forward because not everything has latex that
gives valid mathjax (e.g., Partition([4,3,3,1]) uses \multicol, which is
not
Dear Jaume,
The main reason comes from the following very different algorithmic problem:
1) a one time shot question about an equality of algebraic numbers
2) a lot of arithmetic operations involving algebraic numbers
Basically your question belongs to 1) and AA is designed for 2). If you
w
Nils, this is a most excellent answer. Coming to Sage from Mathematica, I
continue to be puzzled by the various ways functions are handled in Sage,
so thanks!
This is a topic that has not yet been well documented. The only thing I
have found close to it is a description of problems that can occ
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 9:06:26 PM UTC, William wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
> >> The original poster is asking only about basic arithmetic and equality
> >> testing in AA. Since AA embeds as a subfield of QQbar, a solution to
> >> these problems i
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> The original poster is asking only about basic arithmetic and equality
>> testing in AA. Since AA embeds as a subfield of QQbar, a solution to
>> these problems in QQbar automatically implies one in AA.
>>
> Does taking square roots qualif
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 8:04:04 PM UTC, William wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:06:28 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:06:28 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600
>>>
>>> The variable
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:06:28 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600
>>
>> The variable d lies in a number field of degree 32, which is rather big
>> to
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600
>
> The variable d lies in a number field of degree 32, which is rather big
> to call polredbest() on.
>
If the sage implementation ends up doing this the
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:41:48 PM UTC-4, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
>
> I wanted to check how to make new threejs plotting code to use CDN. show?
> and plot? don't mention viewer options and their parameters. So, I go to
> the reference manual
> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/
>
I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600
The variable d lies in a number field of degree 32, which is rather big
to call polredbest() on.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
Backtrace leads into cypari2 polredbest, possibly a pari bug:
sage: a=AA(sqrt(sqrt(5)))
: r=AA(sqrt((AA(sqrt(13))-a)^2+3))
: c=a+r
:
: d= AA(sqrt(r^2-a^2))
:
: 2*a*c == c^2 - d^2
:
^C---
Keyboa
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Jaume Aguade wrote:
> Let r > a > 0 be real numbers. Let c = a + r, d = sqrt(r^2-a^2). Then, it is
> obvious that 2*a*c=c^2-d^2. However, sage crashes when trying to check this
> with a and r rather "simple" algebraic numbers.
>
> I've found this while using sage t
Let r > a > 0 be real numbers. Let c = a + r, d = sqrt(r^2-a^2). Then, it
is obvious that 2*a*c=c^2-d^2. However, sage crashes when trying to check
this with a and r rather "simple" algebraic numbers.
I've found this while using sage to solve elementary geometric problems
involving circles an
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Francois Bissey
wrote:
> Sounds like what “module”/lmod are supposed to do automatically
> for you. Sourcing sage-env effectively give you a sage shell
> as you would if you run “sage -sh”. Again there is not really
> a deactivation. It starts a new shell and once
>
> ...In principle there can be fast progress if the first version only
> implements general fallback rules like the mentioned 2F1 solutions. Many
> Rubi rules only specialize 2F1 solutions, a sort of
> simplify_hypergeometric() if you want. But then, with only the
> hypergeometric (H) rules
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:38:01 AM UTC+1, saad khalid wrote:
>
> ... Also, Sage often gives solutions that are not as simple as possible,
> in the sense that they look ugly often. I think this would help with that.
>
Note that an alternative for this could be to implement special
smplificat
23 matches
Mail list logo
