bug report.
--Pong
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:29:32 AM UTC-7 Emmanuel Briand wrote:
> This is not an answer but I have tried to reproduce this bug with a
> simpler example and I obtained this:
>
> u(x) = sqrt((1-tan(x)^2))
> f(x) = pi/2-arccos(u(x));
> r(x) = f(x)*cos(x)
&
urprised by the fact that it is off by a factor of sqrt(2) from the answer
given by 'numerical_integral'.
Any insight of what's happening here?
--Pong
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from
Sorry for jumping the gun.
The improved version is
sage.plot.multigraphics.GraphicsArray(array)
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/plotting/sage/plot/multigraphics.html#module-sage.plot.multigraphics
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 10:24:08 AM UTC-7, Pong wrote:
>
> I have upda
I have updated to the latest sage (from the cocalc git) last night and have
just found out that the module sage.plot.graphics.GraphicsArray is no
longer available.
Is that true? If so, what would be a replacement for that?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Thank you all for helping along the way. I got SAGE-5.9 installed finally.
It was just a long wait at the stripping unneeded symbols from binaries and
libraries...
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:06:30 AM UTC-7, Pong wrote:
>
> Thanks. I do still have the prebuild and it passes through the
Thanks. I do still have the prebuild and it passes through the build.
But now it hangs at
Creating sage-5.9-x86_64-Linux.tar.gz ...
Moving final distribution file to
/home/pong/sage-mathematics/src/sage-5.9/dist
==> Entering fakeroot environment...
==> Starting package()...
==> Tidyin
Another wierd thing is that, it produces a pkg/ directory with a strange
premission setting.
d- 2 pong users 4096 May 11 09:05 pkg/
I tried to set it to 755 and it is set to that again when I issue makepkg -i
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 2:16:03 AM UTC-7, arojas wrote:
>
>
d not allow the upload).
Thanks in advance
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 2:16:03 AM UTC-7, arojas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:33:01 AM UTC+2, Pong wrote:
>>
>> The one in community is 5.8 (not 5.9) and isn't it a binary package?
>> I'm looking
The one in community is 5.8 (not 5.9) and isn't it a binary package?
I'm looking at the one from AUR which is 5.10 beta.
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:24:26 AM UTC-7, arojas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:17:52 AM UTC+2, Pong wrote:
>>
>> Hi arojas
:
No such file or directory"
On Thursday, May 9, 2013 11:48:01 AM UTC-7, arojas wrote:
>
> El jueves, 9 de mayo de 2013 20:21:43 UTC+2, Pong escribió:
> > Hi Leif
> >
> >
> > I haven't tried any of those. In fact, I just reinstall SAGE 5.8.1
> which
lly I learn more during the
process but that has to wait till the final exams here over (in a week).
On Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:31:37 AM UTC-7, leif wrote:
>
> Pong wrote:
> > Oh... I see. I am ignorant on what various flags mean.
>
> Did you try to build the stand-alone/vani
Hum so does someone know of a fix?
On May 6, 2013 8:46 PM, "François Bissey"
wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 20:39:26 Pong wrote:
> > Alright, I did a fresh compile with SAGE_INSTALL_GCC set to yes. This
> time
> > the compilation failed at gcc.
> > It only instal
On Monday, May 6, 2013 2:19:47 AM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
> On 06/05/13 17:24, Pong wrote:
> > Oh... I see. I am ignorant on what various flags mean.
> >
> > Let me summarize my problems and see if I get them right:
> >
> > 1) my gcc compiler confuses c
build from my system
gcc...
(see the my 3rd message in this discussion)
Am I right? Any ideas on what else can I try?
On Sunday, May 5, 2013 9:20:00 PM UTC-7, leif wrote:
>
> Pong wrote:
> > Report: buliding Singular by itself seems to be completely fine.
> >
> &
Report: buliding Singular by itself seems to be completely fine.
./configure
make -j4
results in
/usr/bin/install -c -s solve_IP
/home/pong/Downloads/Singular-3-1-5/x86_64-Linux
/usr/bin/install -c -s change_cost
/home/pong/Downloads/Singular-3-1-5/x86_64-Linux
/usr/bin/install -c -s
sted.
On Sunday, May 5, 2013 4:14:05 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 16:07:11 Pong wrote:
> > Nope. I got the exact seem error. See the lastest log attached.
> >
> > One more thing that puzzled me is that the arch users just got an update
> > (inclu
rbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> On 05/05/13 19:32, Pong wrote:
> > Looking for help in compiling SAGE 5.9
> >
> > I encountered an error in buliding Singular-3-1-5.p7
> >
> > I suspect the following may be the relevant part of the log file
> >
> > In file include
Hi,
Thanks for the hint. So what would be a possible remedy for that?
Pong
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:27:06 PM UTC-8, François wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:22:49 Wai Yan Pong wrote:
> > I have problems with package ppl-0.11.2.p1 in upgrading to SAGE 5.7 this
version 4.7.2
I have little ideas on what went wrong but noticed the difference on
"Host system:" (in head.log) and the output of uname -a.
Please help and thanks in advance,
Pong
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" g
, kcrisman wrote:
> On Sep 13, 12:08 pm, Pong wrote:
>
> > y,z=var('y,z'); solve(6*x + 10*y + 15*z ==1,x,y,z) gives
> > ([{x: -5/3*y - 5/2*z + 1/6}], [1])
>
> So wacky. Definitely a bug, needless to say.
>
> > ([x == -y + 3], [1])
>
> > My quest
y,z=var('y,z'); solve(6*x + 10*y + 15*z ==1,x,y,z) gives
([{x: -5/3*y - 5/2*z + 1/6}], [1])
while
solve(x+y==3,x,y) gives
([x == -y + 3], [1])
My questions are:
1) Why the notation are different in the 2 and 3-variable case? One
gives x: and the other x==
2) What the [1] in both cases stand for
21 matches
Mail list logo
