Le samedi 22 novembre 2014 15:39:40 UTC+1, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
>
>
> > I got other examples, eg trying using graphs, and discovering than
> building
> > a 100x100 grid was surprisingly time consuming: I am afraid that it
> denotes
> > basic flaws in the definition of graphs in Sage.
>
> Don't
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Jean Bétréma wrote:
> Oops, imho a permutation is a very elementary object, coding it is not so
> hard,
Why do you come to that conclusion? I'm not so sure.
> Moreover the construction
> "Permutation([4,1,2,5,3])" suggests that this is the right way, and indeed:
Hello !
>
sage.combinat.permutation.StandardPermutations_all_with_category.element_class
> AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute
> 'StandardPermutations_all_with_category'
>
> I'm somewhat aware of the motivations of those who "categorize" code for
> combinatorial objects, but yes I'm d
Le vendredi 21 novembre 2014 20:35:47 UTC+1, Harald Schilly a écrit :
>
>
> > Sure this answer by Sage is less cryptic:
> >
> > sage: p=Permutation([4,1,2,5,3])
> > sage: type(p)
> > 'sage.combinat.permutation.StandardPermutations_all_with_category.element_class'>
> >
> > but it prevents me (and p
On Nov 21, 2014 11:46 AM, "Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd)" <
drkir...@kirkbymicrowave.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Nov 2014 22:37, "Stefan" wrote:
> >
> > I don't know if I simply lack the appropriate Mathematica knowledge,
but years ago, when I implemented matroids
> > lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0
On 18 Nov 2014 22:37, "Stefan" wrote:
>
> I don't know if I simply lack the appropriate Mathematica knowledge, but
years ago, when I implemented matroids
> lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0, 1] &, M[[2]][[#[[2]] & /@ M[[3]], #[[2]] & /@
M[[4, {2}];
I am no expert on Mathematica, but Mathematica code does
On Nov 21, 2014 5:27 PM, "Jean Bétréma" wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 19 novembre 2014 00:03:27 UTC+1, William a écrit :
>>
>> >
>> > lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0, 1] &, M[[2]][[#[[2]] & /@ M[[3]], #[[2]] & /@
>> > M[[4, {2}];
>>
>> Holy f*2}];ng s&/@!
>
>
> Sure this answer by Sage is less cryptic:
>
> sag
- William Stein (cell phone)
On Nov 21, 2014 8:27 AM, "Jean Bétréma" wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 19 novembre 2014 00:03:27 UTC+1, William a écrit :
>>
>> >
>> > lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0, 1] &, M[[2]][[#[[2]] & /@ M[[3]], #[[2]] & /@
>> > M[[4, {2}];
>>
>> Holy f*2}];ng s&/@!
>
>
> Sure this answer by
Le mercredi 19 novembre 2014 00:03:27 UTC+1, William a écrit :
>
> >
> > lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0, 1] &, M[[2]][[#[[2]] & /@ M[[3]], #[[2]] & /@
> > M[[4, {2}];
>
> Holy f*2}];ng s&/@!
>
Sure this answer by Sage is less cryptic:
sage: p=Permutation([4,1,2,5,3])
sage: type(p)
but it prevent
>
> > Problems arise when thinking about more complicated mathematical
>> objects. I
>> > don't know if I simply lack the appropriate Mathematica knowledge, but
>> years
>> > ago, when I implemented matroids in Mathematica, a matroid was simply a
>> list
>> > with 6 elements (groundset, repr
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Stefan wrote:
> Problems arise when thinking about more complicated mathematical objects. I
> don't know if I simply lack the appropriate Mathematica knowledge, but years
> ago, when I implemented matroids in Mathematica, a matroid was simply a list
> with 6 elemen
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Stefan wrote:
> Problems arise when thinking about more complicated mathematical objects.
This is also my main argument ... The core point is, that Python
allows you to define higher-level data-types, which are some
combination of data structures and convey a sem
Problems arise when thinking about more complicated mathematical objects. I
don't know if I simply lack the appropriate Mathematica knowledge, but
years ago, when I implemented matroids in Mathematica, a matroid was simply
a list with 6 elements (groundset, representation matrix, and I forget wh
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 at 01:34PM -0800, William Stein wrote:
>> When arguing for Maple's language over the Mathematica language, they
>> say "Functional programs are often opaque; most people, even
>> experienced programmers, find functional-style
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 at 01:34PM -0800, William Stein wrote:
> When arguing for Maple's language over the Mathematica language, they
> say "Functional programs are often opaque; most people, even
> experienced programmers, find functional-style programs to be
> significantly harder to write, read, a
See this interesting document:
http://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/compare/HowMapleComparestoMathematica.pdf
It would be valuable to our users (and potential users) if we had a
similar document which explains and *argues* for why we believe our
approach to mathematical software is better
16 matches
Mail list logo
