Flatpak is a format for packaging Linux desktop applications that can work
on most distros using a single binary. Given the difficulty of packaging
Sagemath for each distro, and the difficulty of updating existing Sage
packages to work with newer versions of distros, I think having a flatpak
p
Dear developers,
In an engineering framework, I frequently define a long list of
symbolic variables, one per line, and add a comment about what it
represents, including the units. Would it be possible to formalise
this somehow, so that I could then type the name of the variable
further down in the
[I am cc-ing sage-nt.]
Without extra infromation, such as an embedding of each field into C,
surely the intersection is not well-defined?
John
On 16 January 2011 22:49, Ben Linowitz wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Given two number fields, say L and K, I would like to be able to
> define the field $L \c
Hello All,
Given two number fields, say L and K, I would like to be able to
define the field $L \cap K$, i.e. the intersection of L and K.
There currently does not appear to be any way of doing this in Sage
(though if there is I would love to hear about it).
Thanks,
Ben Linowitz
--
To post to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 at 11:16AM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> > In Python, I could so something like
> >
> > the_verbatim_line.replace('sage: ', '', 1)
> >
> > but LaTeX does not make string handling easy.
>
> Precisely. So it sounds tempting to have latex write a quoted string
> in the
Hi Dan!
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 09:10:20AM +0900, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 at 11:32PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> > I have a feature request: an environment where I could use the same
> > syntax as in usual doctests (without the sage results):
> >
> > \begin{sageexam
Hi Nicolas,
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 at 11:32PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> I have a feature request: an environment where I could use the same
> syntax as in usual doctests (without the sage results):
>
> \begin{sageexample}
> sage: 1 + 1
> sage: def f(x):
> ... x^2
>
Hi Dan!
I played with sagetex today. That's cool stuff :-)
I have a feature request: an environment where I could use the same
syntax as in usual doctests (without the sage results):
\begin{sageexample}
sage: 1 + 1
sage: def f(x):
... x^2
sage: f(3)
\end
Dear Sage Developers,
It would be very nice if Sage supported the element-wise
multiplication of matrices like the .* operator in Octave/Matlab.
EXAMPLE:
sigma, tau, beta = var('sigma tau beta')
A = matrix([[-1/tau, sigma/tau],[sigma/tau, -1/tau]])
B = matrix([[beta/tau, 0],[0, beta/tau]])
C =
Trac ticket 3844 proposes to automatically add the worksheet DATA
directory to sys.path, so we can easily import python modules - great
idea! But, this DATA directory is specific to each worksheet. If we
have a common set of python modules that will be used in many
worksheets, it would b
Hi,
is it too late to include the multiprocessing package into sage
3.4.1?
There is a backport of it for python 2.5 in Pypi, which is maintained
by the author of the one which figures in the standard library from
2.6 on.
thanks,
Flávio
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To p
Hi there,
I gave my talk to the PhD seminar here at Royal Holloway today and I stressed
the fact that Sage is a unified interface to many math packages quite a lot.
This provoked the follow feature request/suggestion I was quick to turn down.
However, this should forward to all Sage developers
In the command line, I can do
$ sage -b branch
to build the branch, and
$ sage -br branch
to build and then run the branch, so why shouldn't I be able to do
$ sage -r branch
if I'm on a different repository and I want to just run the branch?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~
13 matches
Mail list logo
