Re: [sage-release] Re: [sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Burcin Erocal wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 05:23:23 +1000 > Minh Nguyen wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:15 AM, William Stein wrote: >> >> >> >> > That sounds good to me, though it is during the next Sage Days. >> >> I almost forgot about the 17th Sage Da

Re: [sage-release] Re: [sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 05:23:23 +1000 Minh Nguyen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:15 AM, William Stein wrote: > > > > > That sounds good to me, though it is during the next Sage Days. > > I almost forgot about the 17th Sage Days. Let's make it 22nd September > 2009 as the final date to get

Re: [sage-release] Re: [sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:15 AM, William Stein wrote: > > > >> That sounds good to me, though it is during the next Sage Days. > > I almost forgot about the 17th Sage Days. Let's make it 22nd September > 2009 as the final date to get features

Re: [sage-release] Re: [sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:15 AM, William Stein wrote: > That sounds good to me, though it is during the next Sage Days. I almost forgot about the 17th Sage Days. Let's make it 22nd September 2009 as the final date to get features in for the upcoming Sage 4.1.2. So after 22nd September, feature

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > Hi Burcin, > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote: > > > >> Do we have a planned release date so I know when to wrap up my changes >> in pynac and submit them for review? Minh? > > How about 15th September 2009 for a feature

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM, TimDaly wrote: > > I might suggest something like: > > http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/rosetta.html > > which was an attempt to provide a translation from system to system. > Sage should probably consider a translator such as > > Rosetta('expression', 'sou

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

I might suggest something like: http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/rosetta.html which was an attempt to provide a translation from system to system. Sage should probably consider a translator such as Rosetta('expression', 'sourcesystem', 'targetsystem') On Sep 7, 3:38 am, John Cremona w

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

Hi Burcin, On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote: > Do we have a planned release date so I know when to wrap up my changes > in pynac and submit them for review? Minh? How about 15th September 2009 for a feature freeze date? Does that sound reasonable to you? -- Regards Minh V

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 11:28:59 -0700 William Stein wrote: > > >> If we also instantiate the class but with name returning 'ln', that > >> might work. > > > > Whenever it made a round trip to maxima, etc. it would get > > "normalized" back to log. Also, would > > > > sage: log(x) + ln(x) > > 2*log(

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

>> If we also instantiate the class but with name returning 'ln', that >> might work. > > Whenever it made a round trip to maxima, etc. it would get > "normalized" back to log. Also, would > > sage: log(x) + ln(x) > 2*log(x) > > Just declaring ln = log, and not having ln in the output (unless > pe

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sep 6, 2009, at 3:10 PM, William Stein wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Burcin Erocal > wrote: >> >> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:35:24 -0700 >> William Stein wrote: >> >>> I think the vote from this dicussion for Sage was to make it so >>> ln and >>> log are both supported and "log" is

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

mirko wrote : > Would it be possible to support both ln(x) and log(x), tg(x) and tan > (x) and so on via a locale setting? > If one locale is selected log, tan and so on, will be used, if another > that ln, tg, etc. > The input and the output must be the same, even in tex output and help files

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

Would it be possible to support both ln(x) and log(x), tg(x) and tan (x) and so on via a locale setting? If one locale is selected log, tan and so on, will be used, if another that ln, tg, etc. Mirko On Sep 7, 12:38 am, John Cremona wrote: > While we are at it:  asin = arcsin?  acos=arccos? at

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

+1 for the run-time option if I have a vote. It takes some effort to get used to having to declare all variables and yet we stick to it. Why not make the user declare what they mean by log(x)? Not sure about the requirement of declaring the base every time. I previously thought this would resol

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

While we are at it: asin = arcsin? acos=arccos? atan=arctan? ctg = cotan (etc etc) John 2009/9/6 Tim Lahey : > > > On Sep 6, 2009, at 6:10 PM, William Stein wrote: > >> If we also instantiate the class but with name returning 'ln', that >> might work. >> >>> >>> In this new system, what will

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

> Unrelated question: What's up with Axiom development these days?    Is > there any sort of relatively recent status report?   I'm just > generally curious. This isn't an Axiom forum so I'll skip the details and just give pointers. Axiom is released every 2 months, the next one is the end of Se

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sep 6, 2009, at 6:10 PM, William Stein wrote: > If we also instantiate the class but with name returning 'ln', that > might work. > >> >> In this new system, what will >> >> sage: integrate(1/x, x) >> >> return? > > I would have it return log(x).We do have to make some choices. > How ab

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Burcin Erocal wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:35:24 -0700 > William Stein wrote: > >> I think the vote from this dicussion for Sage was to make it so ln and >> log are both supported and "log" is base e by default.   So in the >> future we'll have: >> >> sage: ln(

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:35:24 -0700 William Stein wrote: > I think the vote from this dicussion for Sage was to make it so ln and > log are both supported and "log" is base e by default. So in the > future we'll have: > > sage: ln(x) > ln(x) > sage: log(x) > log(x) > > That should make most pe

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

Hi, On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:35 PM, William Stein wrote: > sage: ln(x) > ln(x) > sage: log(x) > log(x) > > That should make most people happy. Just a comment: having two different symbolic log functions in pynac will imply (by default) - sage: log(x) - ln(x) log(x) - ln(x) - I

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:29 PM, TimDaly wrote: > The macro >  ln(x) ==> log(x) > expands log(n) so ln(n) prints as log(n) Python does not have "macros" (whatever those are).However the equality "ln = log" is already set in Sage, so we have already that: sage: ln(x) log(x) > You could create

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:06 AM, TimDaly wrote: > > I just bought the book "Gamma" by Julian Havil, a mathematician. > In the introduction on page xix he uses ln for the natural log. > From this I conclude that the notation is in current use by > mathematicians > as well as engineers such as Prof.

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

I just bought the book "Gamma" by Julian Havil, a mathematician. In the introduction on page xix he uses ln for the natural log. >From this I conclude that the notation is in current use by mathematicians as well as engineers such as Prof. Sadoway at MIT. Axiom can support this by defining a macr

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

Hi William, Sorry, not this time as I'm travelling and only stumbled over this when checking my emails. I hope someone else can do it. Cheers Stan William Stein wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Stan Schymanski > wrote: > > > Hm, since we wanted to g

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

In the lectures on solid state chemistry, lecture 22 the plot is shown as the ln(x), "the natural log"... in the open courseware from MIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuG75QH0kA&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=3B87AF6948F5E8F9&index=22 On Aug 24, 9:56 pm, William Stein wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > > Tim Lahey wrote: >> >> On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:54 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately it doesn't mean that.  I think it just means that "ln" >>> is a shortcut for "log", but otherwise works just like "log". >> >> >> Is it possible in

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

Tim Lahey wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:54 PM, William Stein wrote: > >> Unfortunately it doesn't mean that. I think it just means that "ln" >> is a shortcut for "log", but otherwise works just like "log". > > > Is it possible in this change to have function for ln that will > print to L

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, William Stein wrote: > > Hi, > > One nuisance in mathematics is the "ln(x)" notation for natural > logarithms by students up to a certain age, followed by the "log(x)" > notation used for exactly the same thing after a certain age.   So > I've always taken great pr

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote: > > Hm, since we wanted to get away from implicit functions, the consistent > think to do would be to always require the base when a user wants to use > the log function. I think that this could avoid some confusion. I think that would be

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

Hm, since we wanted to get away from implicit functions, the consistent think to do would be to always require the base when a user wants to use the log function. I think that this could avoid some confusion. In every CAS, I have to check in the documentation what the program means by log(x).

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

William Stein wrote: > * Many engineers, biologists, astronomers, and some others write > only "ln(x)" or "log_e(x)" when they mean the natural logarithm of x, > and take "log(x)" to mean log_10(x) or, in computer science, log2(x). That has been pretty much my experience here in the UK - jus

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:54 PM, William Stein wrote: > > Unfortunately it doesn't mean that. I think it just means that "ln" > is a shortcut for "log", but otherwise works just like "log". Is it possible in this change to have function for ln that will print to LaTeX and just call log behind t

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:54 PM, William Stein wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Tim Lahey wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:25 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> > >> > So since Tim's from Waterloo that might explain his preference for ln. >> >> >> I preferred ln(x) well before I lea

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Tim Lahey wrote: > > > On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:25 PM, William Stein wrote: > > > > > So since Tim's from Waterloo that might explain his preference for ln. > > > I preferred ln(x) well before I learned Maple. Plus, all my textbooks > used > ln(x). Good point. In

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:25 PM, William Stein wrote: > > So since Tim's from Waterloo that might explain his preference for ln. I preferred ln(x) well before I learned Maple. Plus, all my textbooks used ln(x). As for Matlab, it might be engineering oriented, but engineers didn't invent it. I'

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Tim Lahey wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Harald Schilly wrote: > >> I think that's maybe a reminiscence from the age of pocket calculators >> or even slide rules. >> > > ln(x) is what's used in engineering. I dislike the use of log(x) for > ln(x) > but I'm

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

On Aug 23, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Harald Schilly wrote: > I think that's maybe a reminiscence from the age of pocket calculators > or even slide rules. > ln(x) is what's used in engineering. I dislike the use of log(x) for ln(x) but I'm guessing I don't have much of a choice. All use of log I learn

[sage-devel] Re: log(x) versus ln(x)

+1 for change back. I think that's maybe a reminiscence from the age of pocket calculators or even slide rules. h --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel