> I think that a CAS without a strong programming language is nothing
> but a simple pocket calculator. Therefore, if a mathematical notation
> interferes too much with the requirements of the underlying
> programming language, then the mathematical notation should be
> dropped.
I vote +1 for th
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Dr. David
Kirkby wrote:
>
> In[7]:= 5!!!
>
> Out[7]= 1307674368000
>
> In[8]:= (5!!)!
>
> Out[8]= 1307674368000
>
> In[9]:= 5
>
> Out[9]= 2027025
>
> In[10]:= (5!!)!!
>
> Out[10]= 2027025
>
Yuck. -1 to compatibility with this. All or nothing -- if you're
goi
2009/9/2 kcrisman :
>
>
>>
>> But clearly Mathemaitca shows there is some ambiguity about how
>> multiple exclamation marks are used.
>
> Yes, unfortunately math is filled with such contextual ambiguity and/
> or conflicting conventions (for instance, is i an indexing integer or
> a root of -1?).
>
> But clearly Mathemaitca shows there is some ambiguity about how
> multiple exclamation marks are used.
Yes, unfortunately math is filled with such contextual ambiguity and/
or conflicting conventions (for instance, is i an indexing integer or
a root of -1?). I'm usually all for multiple mod
2009/9/2 Dan Drake :
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 at 11:42PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> If we support the ! notation, we should either have x!! == (x!)! or,
>> preferably, x!!..! be the multi factorial (not limiting ourselves to
>> single and double).
>
> I study combinatorics, and I'm fine with *n
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 at 11:42PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> If we support the ! notation, we should either have x!! == (x!)! or,
> preferably, x!!..! be the multi factorial (not limiting ourselves to
> single and double).
I study combinatorics, and I'm fine with *not* supporting ! notation.
Wri
Hi!
On Sep 2, 7:40 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> Wow, that seems totally ambiguous. Is 5!!! equal to (5!!)! or (5!)!! or
> ((5!)!)! The notation is pretty bad in this case.
[...]
Yes, and this is why the very common notation "5!" is bad syntax that
should be avoided in a CAS, IMHO.
Of course, one
On Sep 1, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>
>>> Em, I thought I'd try this in Mathematica
>>>
>>> In[1]:= 5!
>>>
>>> Out[1]= 120
>>>
>>> In[2]:= 5!!
>>>
>>> Out[2]= 15
>>>
>>> In[3]:= 5!!!
>>>
>>> Out[3]= 1307674368000
>>>
>>> In[
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> Em, I thought I'd try this in Mathematica
>>
>> In[1]:= 5!
>>
>> Out[1]= 120
>>
>> In[2]:= 5!!
>>
>> Out[2]= 15
>>
>> In[3]:= 5!!!
>>
>> Out[3]= 1307674368000
>>
>> In[4]:= 5
>>
>> Out[4]= 2027025
>>
>> In[5]:= 5!
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> Em, I thought I'd try this in Mathematica
>>
>> In[1]:= 5!
>>
>> Out[1]= 120
>>
>> In[2]:= 5!!
>>
>> Out[2]= 15
>>
>> In[3]:= 5!!!
>>
>> Out[3]= 1307674368000
>>
>> In[4]:= 5
>>
>> Out[4]= 2027025
>>
>> In[5]:= 5!
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Em, I thought I'd try this in Mathematica
>
> In[1]:= 5!
>
> Out[1]= 120
>
> In[2]:= 5!!
>
> Out[2]= 15
>
> In[3]:= 5!!!
>
> Out[3]= 1307674368000
>
> In[4]:= 5
>
> Out[4]= 2027025
>
> In[5]:= 5!
>
>
>
> Anyone like to guess what it's doing?
Trying t
Tom Boothby wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Robert
> Bradshaw wrote:
>> As for the question at hand, I'm personally not convinced this is useful
>> enough to merit another departure from pure Python. It also risks turning
>> the valid Python expression "x!=120" into an invalid one (un
Hi,
Out of curiosity, I want to ask why Sage has the syntax "R. = QQ[]"
rather than "R = QQ[]"? It seems to me that the dot is redundant.
Is it something the preparser cann't do?
Kwankyu
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@go
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Robert
Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, William Stein wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:23 AM, rjf wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You can either
>>> (a) adhere to Python syntax.
>>> (b) adhere to Python except for a few changes that are so subtle that
>>> no one w
I also don't consider Fateman's comments flamebait.
This kind of syntactic-philosopy discussion comes up frequently on CA
mailing lists.
I've had an offline discussion about supporting the quantum mechanical
ket
operator with the syntax of "|state>". One possible implementation is
to
consider th
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:23 AM, rjf wrote:
>
>>
>> You can either
>> (a) adhere to Python syntax.
>> (b) adhere to Python except for a few changes that are so subtle that
>> no one would even notice.
>> (c) adhere to Python except for a few more chang
We have not actually had any +1 votes for a new postfix ! operator, so
it's bit premature to criticise that decision be fore it hasn't been
made. (William's +1 was for a different suggestion, that Sage's
symbolic variables should not be allowed to be wider than python's.
Again, keeping to python
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:23 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> You can either
> (a) adhere to Python syntax.
> (b) adhere to Python except for a few changes that are so subtle that
> no one would even notice.
> (c) adhere to Python except for a few more changes that you tell
> everyone about and hope that the d
You can either
(a) adhere to Python syntax.
(b) adhere to Python except for a few changes that are so subtle that
no one would even notice.
(c) adhere to Python except for a few more changes that you tell
everyone about and hope that the discrepancy between Sage and Python
(and Cython) will not be
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Fredrik Johansson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > How about supporting n! as a shortcut for factorial(n)? This syntax is
> > very convenient and makes a huge difference for combinatorial
> > expressions with many factorials. M&M (Maple & Mathematica)
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How about supporting n! as a shortcut for factorial(n)? This syntax is
> very convenient and makes a huge difference for combinatorial
> expressions with many factorials. M&M (Maple & Mathematica) allow this
> notation, as do many scientific calculators.
>
> Al
2009/8/29 Fredrik Johansson :
>
> Hi,
>
> How about supporting n! as a shortcut for factorial(n)? This syntax is
> very convenient and makes a huge difference for combinatorial
> expressions with many factorials. M&M (Maple & Mathematica) allow this
> notation, as do many scientific calculators.
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
