Jason Grout wrote:
> Can you tell us what wv, wv1, wb, wb1, veloc, mort, lwat, jbiom, rwat,
> and av are?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
It's a water and biomass balance model. Here is the full code, FYI:
dwaterv = (av p - esv - etv - qvb + qbv);
dwaterb = (ab p - esb + qvb - qbv);
ab = 1 - av;
qvb
On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:43 AM, rjf wrote:
> I think that some of the suggestions here pretty much miss the mark.
>
> If you want to have Maxima do the same thing as Mathematica's Reduce
> program
> (and, by the way I think this would be good, especially since
> Mathematica's Reduce
> program seems
I think that some of the suggestions here pretty much miss the mark.
If you want to have Maxima do the same thing as Mathematica's Reduce
program
(and, by the way I think this would be good, especially since
Mathematica's Reduce
program seems to have been improved substantially so it is a store-
Stan Schymanski wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 1, 5:58 pm, kcrisman wrote:
> [Snip]
>
>> Still, this idea is worth trying for others to play with. Especially
>> if it were first implemented with a 1 or 2 level recursion, it would
>> help out with a lot of integrals and limits which just need to know
>>
On Oct 1, 1:24 pm, Stan Schymanski wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> This sounds great. Could this package be used from within sage, or would
> it have to be run on a separate installation of maxima? If it runs from
> within sage, it would probably already solve part of the problem!
>
> Cheers,
> Stan
>
Hi Robert,
This sounds great. Could this package be used from within sage, or would
it have to be run on a separate installation of maxima? If it runs from
within sage, it would probably already solve part of the problem!
Cheers,
Stan
Robert Dodier wrote:
> On Oct 1, 9:33 am, Stan Schymansk
On Oct 1, 5:58 pm, kcrisman wrote:
[Snip]
> Still, this idea is worth trying for others to play with. Especially
> if it were first implemented with a 1 or 2 level recursion, it would
> help out with a lot of integrals and limits which just need to know
> x>,<,==0. How efficient is Mma's Red
On Oct 1, 9:33 am, Stan Schymanski wrote:
> Would it be hard to write a routine, which answers all of maxima's
> questions with all possible answers and creates a new solution branch
> for each answer?
I attempted, some time ago, to automate the question-answer
business; the result is the "noni
William Stein wrote:
> There's the small problem that as far as I can tell, unfortunately
> Carl stopped working on or contributing to Sage several months ago.
Yes, I haven't seen him around either. My guess is that someone
interested/capable of implementing CAD would get a huge headstart if
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 1, 11:36 am, William Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>>
>> > I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
>> > Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage
On Oct 1, 11:36 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>
> > I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
> > Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage throws
> > various questions generated by maxima at me, abo
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>>> I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
>>> Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage throws
>>> various question
William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>> I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
>> Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage throws
>> various questions generated by maxima at me, about whether variables
>> and
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
>
> I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
> Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage throws
> various questions generated by maxima at me, about whether variables
> and certain terms are positiv
I am really, really missing a function like MMA's Reduce in sage.
Typically, when I want to solve a complicated equation, sage throws
various questions generated by maxima at me, about whether variables
and certain terms are positive, zero, or negative. Some of them can be
answered a priori by app
The notation x = ZZ['x'].gen() (etc) looks really weird to beginners.
So it is worth pointing out that x=polygen(ZZ), x=polygen(RR) etc do
the same and are less obfuscatory.
John
2009/9/26 Robert Bradshaw :
>
> On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:11 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>> If you want to look at possible definiti
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:11 PM, rjf wrote:
> If you want to look at possible definitions of solve that have been
> refined more recently than Maxima's solve, you can look at
> Mathematica's
> Solve, NSolve, RSolve, Reduce, and maybe some others like Eliminate.
>
> Maxima's solve dates to 1971, but t
> And pi can't be represented by QQbar at all!
Thanks for the correction! What I meant was a transcendental extension over QQ.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email t
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> What i do understand is that for example elements in QQBar should be
>> represented by symbols (sqrt(2) instead of a numerical value 1,... or
>> pi instead of 3.14... ).
>
> The problem is that most elements of QQBar can't be represented this
> way, and even if t
If you want to look at possible definitions of solve that have been
refined more recently than Maxima's solve, you can look at
Mathematica's
Solve, NSolve, RSolve, Reduce, and maybe some others like Eliminate.
Maxima's solve dates to 1971, but there is also linsolve, algsys,
realroots, and some o
On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:20 PM, x x wrote:
> Hi Burcin,
>
> Thanks for the explanation!
>
>> "Symbolic ring" is an unfortunate name. It doesn't mean much from the
>> "mathematical point of view." It's just where all the symbolic stuff
>> live in Sage. Maybe we should call it symbolic parent.
>
> I a
> Sorry if i am stating the obvious here, the reason is that i am trying
> to explain why i think it should be (either implicit or explicit)
> clear over which algebraic structure is computed.
Generally it is -- try parent(foo) or foo.parent() to see what
"algebraic structure" is in play.
sage
Hi Burcin,
Thanks for the explanation!
> "Symbolic ring" is an unfortunate name. It doesn't mean much from the
> "mathematical point of view." It's just where all the symbolic stuff
> live in Sage. Maybe we should call it symbolic parent.
I agree that the naming is unfortunate. I think it would
Hi Niels,
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:45:37 +0200
x x wrote:
>
> Sage is a great project in my opinion, and i hope to contribute, when
> i am more familiar with sage and python. I am not sure whether this
> belongs to sage-support or sage-devel, since i don't understand the
> architecture, in parti
Sage is a great project in my opinion, and i hope to contribute, when
i am more familiar with sage and python. I am not sure whether this
belongs to sage-support or sage-devel, since i don't understand the
architecture, in particular relating to the Symbolic expressions.
That being said, i still
On Sep 19, 11:41 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
>
> kcrisman wrote:
> > I don't know if there is a way to get at where coefficients of
> > elements in SR come from; they all just become symbolic expressions.
> > Even with the .coeffs() method, they still en
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
kcrisman wrote:
> I don't know if there is a way to get at where coefficients of
> elements in SR come from; they all just become symbolic expressions.
> Even with the .coeffs() method, they still end up coming out as
> symbolic expressions. Burcin or ot
On Sep 18, 2009, at 6:42 AM, niels wrote:
>
>> Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)? ...
>> sage:solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x) ...
>
> I think it should at least be clear over what ring the user wants to
> solve, then it is also clear which method should be used.
>
> * If the
On Sep 18, 9:42 am, niels wrote:
> > Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)? ...
> > sage:solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x) ...
>
> I think it should at least be clear over what ring the user wants to
> solve, then it is also clear which method should be used.
>
> * If the coeffi
On Sep 17, 5:01 pm, Dirk wrote:
> Sorry that I misunderstood the purpose of the question. But I would
> like to re-make one of my points.
>
> sage: solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x)
>
> [x == -0.0588115172555,
> x == (-1.33109991788 + 1.52241655184*I),
> x == (-1.33109991788 - 1.52241655184*I),
> x =
> Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)? ...
> sage:solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x) ...
I think it should at least be clear over what ring the user wants to
solve, then it is also clear which method should be used.
* If the coefficients are algebraic/transcendental over QQ then
Sorry that I misunderstood the purpose of the question. But I would
like to re-make one of my points.
sage: solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x)
[x == -0.0588115172555,
x == (-1.33109991788 + 1.52241655184*I),
x == (-1.33109991788 - 1.52241655184*I),
x == (1.36050567904 + 1.5188087221*I),
x == (1.360505
>
> Great idea. We can make an alias:
>
> solve_numerical=find_root
>
Yes, that would be a great idea. I can make that part of #6642.
> Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)?
>
Yes, but it has different syntax than the other solves - namely, you
must specify an inter
Maurizio wrote:
> My 2 cents here:
> why do we keep the "numerical solve" function with a completely
> different name? I know that "find_root" or "roots" make sense, but
> wouldn't just be much better to name them "solve_numerical", or
> anything like putting a postfix after the word "solve"?
> I
My 2 cents here:
why do we keep the "numerical solve" function with a completely
different name? I know that "find_root" or "roots" make sense, but
wouldn't just be much better to name them "solve_numerical", or
anything like putting a postfix after the word "solve"?
I don't know whether this is g
Hi,
I don't use the solve() function at all. I'm probably missing the
user's point of view completely, so please take what I say below with a
grain of salt.
Going by the "What Would Maple Do" rule, I would like solve() to remain
exact. Looking through the examples here
http://www.maplesoft.com/
For a frustrated user because of precisely this issue, see
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/6407896aab6a52cc/bfb4e85815ef94a3?show_docid=bfb4e85815ef94a3
. I now think we should definitely change to having to_poly_solve as
an option, but not default, even if we mis
Sorry, I think you both misunderstood my question :) If I was having
trouble in that sense, I would have posted on sage-support.
My question is, what behavior should Sage ALLOW from solve? I am in
the midst of fixing some solve behavior caused by the Maxima upgrade,
and want someone else's opin
Dirk wrote:
>
> By the way, the numerical answers you got are very bad, but Maxima is
> not a numerical analysis package. The way to get good numerical roots
> is:
> sage: pari('x^5+x^3+17*[x + (0.0588115223184494 + 0.E-38*I), 1; x +
> (-1.36050567903502 +
> 1.51880872209965*I), 1; x + (1.33109
On Sep 15, 9:27 pm, kcrisman wrote:
> We have some inconsistency in solve.
>
> sage: solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x)
>
> [x == -0.0588115172555,
> x == (-1.33109991788 + 1.52241655184*I),
> x == (-1.33109991788 - 1.52241655184*I),
> x == (1.36050567904 + 1.5188087221*I),
> x == (1.36050567904 - 1.51
40 matches
Mail list logo
