> Maybe an alternative viewpoint (perhaps taken by Axiom, and maybe
> Sage) is
>
> (a) if you want to use a computer algebra system (especially one
> accessed through Sage) effectively then
> (b) you should know something about "modern algebra", at least so as
> to be conversant with the notions
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:47:12 -0700 (PDT), rjf wrote:
> Maybe an alternative viewpoint (perhaps taken by Axiom, and maybe
> Sage) is
>
> (a) if you want to use a computer algebra system (especially one
> accessed through Sage) effectively then
> (b) you should know something about "modern algebr
Maybe an alternative viewpoint (perhaps taken by Axiom, and maybe
Sage) is
(a) if you want to use a computer algebra system (especially one
accessed through Sage) effectively then
(b) you should know something about "modern algebra", at least so as
to be conversant with the notions
of ring, fiel
On Aug 23, 5:03 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> On 08/23/10 09:52 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 1:25 am, John Cremona wrote:
>
> >> However, I suggest that for many users who are not pure
> >> mathematicians, having a different (or alternative?) name for the
> >> parameter "ring" might b
On 08/23/10 09:52 PM, rjf wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:25 am, John Cremona wrote:
However, I suggest that for many users who are not pure
mathematicians, having a different (or alternative?) name for the
parameter "ring" might be helpful.
John
Maybe they shouldn't be using Sage if they don't know
On Aug 23, 1:25 am, John Cremona wrote:
> However, I suggest that for many users who are not pure
> mathematicians, having a different (or alternative?) name for the
> parameter "ring" might be helpful.
>
> John
>
Maybe they shouldn't be using Sage if they don't know the term
"ring",
as well a
On Aug 22, 2:23 pm, Oscar Gerardo Lazo Arjona
wrote:
> sage: a=8594.0*x^3 - 30768.0 *x^2 + 36399.0 *x -14224.0
> sage: b=solve(a==0,x)
> sage: for i in b:
> : c=i.rhs()
> : print c.n()
> :
> 1.19783952189420 - 4.16333634234434e-17*I
> 0.998467807920659 + 1.38777878078145e-17*I
It has been known since the 16th century that to solve a real cubic
equation with 3 real roots using the traditional formula involves the
use of complex numbers along the way! This was one reason for the
original acceptance of complex numbers.
In this case if you type a.roots? you will see that t
On 22 ago, 22:23, Oscar Gerardo Lazo Arjona
wrote:
> I'm trying to find the solutions to solve this equation
>
> sage: a=8594.0*x^3 - 30768.0 *x^2 + 36399.0 *x -14224.0
> sage: b=solve(a==0,x)
> sage: for i in b:
> : c=i.rhs()
> : print c.n()
> :
> 1.19783952189420 - 4.16333634
well, Mathematica probably does a counting of real roots before
solving
(and in any event an equation of odd degree with real coefficients is
guaranteed to get at least one
real solution).
It could also be that it just does a more aggressive rounding than
Sage.
In any event you can do this rounding
10 matches
Mail list logo
