Dear William,
Thank you for pointing out the migration to Ginac. I haven't used
Sage this past 2 years so I haven't been following the mailing
list. A few days ago, Robert Bradshaw mentioned that Sage is
weaning from Maxima symbolics. I thought it was a long term idea,
and I didn't know that
There was a typo in my last email.
+def _recursive_sub(self, kwds):
+ops = self._operands
+arg = ops[1]._recursive_sub(kwds)
+if isinstance(arg, SymbolicConstant):
+return SymbolicConstant(ops[0](arg._obj)) <<< typo on this line
+return ops[0](ar
Hi,
>From sage/calculus/calculus.py::SymbolicArithmetic._recursive_sub(self, kwds):
>#Check to see if all of the new_ops are symbolic constants
>#If so, then we should return a symbolic constant.
>is_constant = all(map(lambda x: isinstance(x, SymbolicConstant), new_ops))
>if is
Hi,
This command is surprisingly slow,
> sage: f = sum([x]*100)
> sage: f
> 100*x
> sage: time f(1)
> CPU times: user 3.26 s, sys: 0.71 s, total: 3.97 s
> Wall time: 12.20 s
> 100
This stems from the quirk I mentioned in an earlier email today.
> The problem is that f.variables() relies on th
Hi,
These commands probably should return True.
> sage: x._has_been_simplified()
> False
> sage: y = simplify(x)
> sage: y._has_been_simplified()
> False
Paisa
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
Hi,
These two commands fail to give the same outputs.
> sage: f = x-x+y; f, f(1)
> (y,1)
> sage: f = x+y-x; f, f(1)
> (y,y)
Here's another example.
> sage: f = x-x+y-x; f, f(1,0)
> (y - x, -1)
> sage: f = x+y-x-x; f, f(1,0)
> (y - x, y - 1)
The bug stems from sage.calculus.SymbolicArithm
Hi
The command 'bool(3http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
