I wrote that qepcad cannot deal with terms like '-6 != 0'. This shows as
follows:
sage: qepcad(-6 != 0, vars='(x)')
---
ValueErrorTraceback (most recent call last)
in ()
> 1 qepcad(-Integ
On 2014-07-22, Robert Pollak wrote:
> Am 22.07.2014 10:29, schrieb Dima Pasechnik:
>> perhaps a newer qepcad can deal with more things (Sage's qepcad 1.50
>> is quite outdated by now). Care to make an update of the corresponding
>> spkg?
>
> I have been thinking about it.
>
> As a first step I hav
Am 22.07.2014 10:29, schrieb Dima Pasechnik:
> perhaps a newer qepcad can deal with more things (Sage's qepcad 1.50
> is quite outdated by now). Care to make an update of the corresponding
> spkg?
I have been thinking about it.
As a first step I have built qepcad-B-1.69 and its dependency, the
cu
On 2014-07-18, Robert Pollak wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 1, 2013 11:37:02 AM UTC+2, I wrote:
>>
>> solve(abs((x-1)/(x-5)) <= 1/3, x)
>>
> [...]
>> The main issue is that the result should be
>>
>> [[-1 <= x, x <= 2]]
>>
>
> I have found a way to get this! A little term massaging gives me the
On Monday, July 1, 2013 11:37:02 AM UTC+2, I wrote:
>
> solve(abs((x-1)/(x-5)) <= 1/3, x)
>
[...]
> The main issue is that the result should be
>
> [[-1 <= x, x <= 2]]
>
I have found a way to get this! A little term massaging gives me the
equivalent:
sage: qepcad((x-1)^2 <= (1/3)^2 * (x-5)^2
On 2014-07-15, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On 2014-07-14, Robert Pollak wrote:
>> Am 11.07.2014 18:51, schrieb parisse:
>>> sage: %giac
>>>
>>> --> Switching to Giac <--
>>>
>>> giac: solve(abs((x-1)/(x-5)) <= 1/3, x)
>>> list[((x>=-1) and (x<=2))]
>>
>> This looks great, and I could confirm this
On 2014-07-14, Robert Pollak wrote:
> Am 11.07.2014 18:51, schrieb parisse:
>> sage: %giac
>>
>> --> Switching to Giac <--
>>
>> giac: solve(abs((x-1)/(x-5)) <= 1/3, x)
>> list[((x>=-1) and (x<=2))]
>
> This looks great, and I could confirm this in Giac/Xcas.
>
> However, there is no Sage inst
That's unfortunate for sage, since giac has other features that sage could
take benefit of, like much faster Groebner basis on Q, rational univariate
representation, and other multivariate polynomial operations (*, gcd,
factorization).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Am 11.07.2014 18:51, schrieb parisse:
> sage: %giac
>
> --> Switching to Giac <--
>
> giac: solve(abs((x-1)/(x-5)) <= 1/3, x)
> list[((x>=-1) and (x<=2))]
This looks great, and I could confirm this in Giac/Xcas.
However, there is no Sage instance easily available, where this works:
Both the c
I wrote
> * What would happen if Maxima were called with the default "domain : real"?
Of course I mean: What would happen if Maxima were *always* called like
that.
I have created the Maxima issue 'fourier_elim and "domain : complex"':
https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2783/
--
You received
sage: %giac
--> Switching to Giac <--
giac: solve(abs((x-1)/(x-5)) <= 1/3, x)
list[((x>=-1) and (x<=2))]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-
If you mean: "what would happen if sage would initialize maxima_calculus
> (which is maxima_lib) with domain: real?" -- a lot of doctests would break.
>
Yes, that's what I meant, and you are confirming my assumption.
But shouldn't Maxima even give an error message when you ask it to solve an
On Friday, July 11, 2014 2:01:33 AM UTC-7, Robert Pollak wrote:
>
> The following does not work, it still gives the "!= 0" terms:
>
> maxima.eval("domain : real;")
> solve(abs((x-1)/(x-5)) <= 1/3, x)
>
sage: maxima_calculus("domain: real")
real
sage: solve(abs((x-1)/(x-5)) <= 1/3, x)
#0: solve_rat
Hello Nils, thank you for your analysis!
You wrote:
> It should really be no surprise that inequalities don't play nice with
> "domain: complex"
>
Hm. "domain : complex" is set both in maxima_lib.py and maxima.py. Which
one is responsible here?
It has been in there "forever" (I followed it bac
On Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:46:58 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> So next thing is probably to try the usual: see if the maxima console
> behaves the same if you paste in all of sage's maxima init code. If not, we
> have a real riddle. If so, you could try to pare the init code down to the
> l
On Monday, July 1, 2013 8:33:47 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> I feel like this might have something to do with the fact we're using the
> binary ECL interface, maybe?
>
Nope. It may have to do with our interface in general, or with the options
we set/packages we load. All of the following g
On Monday, July 1, 2013 5:37:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Pollak wrote:
>
> Hello list!
>
> I have already posted the following question to the Maxima mailing list
> [1],
> but I am not sure whether corresponding improvements should go into Sage
> or Maxima.
>
> In Sage 5.4, when I enter
>
> solve(a
17 matches
Mail list logo
