Re: [sage-devel] Re: tutorial()

sage: tutorial?? Type: instancemethod String Form:> File: /usr/lib/sagemath/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/misc/sagedoc.py Definition: tutorial(self) Source: def tutorial(self): """ The Sage tutorial. To get started with Sage, start here. EXAMPLES::

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial()

Le lundi 8 juillet 2013 13:32:11 UTC+1, Jan Groenewald a écrit : > > notebook() launches in firefox (my preferred browser on ubuntu 12.04). > tutorial() launches in chromium, why is that? Trying to do a from-source > install > so that I can look at the code. > You do not need to install from sour

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

Harald Schilly wrote: > On Dec 15, 4:34 am, mhampton wrote: >> Thanks for pointing that out. I was looking for "svd", lower-case, >> and missed it. > > actually, me too. Is there a reason why it is uppercase? I'm for > renaming it to lowercase and adding an uppercase synonym for backwards > comp

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

On Dec 15, 4:34 am, mhampton wrote: > Thanks for pointing that out.  I was looking for "svd", lower-case, > and missed it. actually, me too. Is there a reason why it is uppercase? I'm for renaming it to lowercase and adding an uppercase synonym for backwards compatibility. h -- To post to this

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

Thanks for pointing that out. I was looking for "svd", lower-case, and missed it. -Marshall On Dec 14, 6:33 pm, Jason Grout wrote: > Jason Grout wrote: > > > Use .SVD(): > > I should mention that .SVD just calls numpy/scipy for the actual > computation. > > Jason -- To post to this group, sen

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

Jason Grout wrote: > > Use .SVD(): > I should mention that .SVD just calls numpy/scipy for the actual computation. Jason -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

mhampton wrote: > If you convert to numpy matrices, then Sage is pretty competitive with > matlab. We still have some room for improvement in making it easy > though - despite Jason Grout's improvements, a matrix over RDF is > missing some methods I'd like, such as the singular value > decompositi

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

David Joyner wrote: > Going form a vague memory: > My colleague was arguing that one should not teach > a course in scientific programming using Sage > because it was so slow in doing some very simple > things. Apparently if A is a vector or matrix in matlab > (ie, an array or real numbers) and f

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

With respect to some of this discussion, see also the following sage- support request: http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/9e6475494f85cd53 - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an ema

Re: [sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

Hi Chris, On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:30 PM, chris wuthrich wrote: > > Thanks a lot for this tutorial. I think it would be great to have it > included in the documentation. See ticket #7679 [1] for a patch to enhance the Constructions document with this tutorial. [1] http://trac.sagemath.org/sag

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

Thanks a lot for this tutorial. I think it would be great to have it included in the documentation. I did not know anything about functional programming before using sage. To a new mathematical user without python knowledge things like lambda = 4 SyntaxError: invalid syntax lambda? No object 'l

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

On Dec 13, 1:02 am, Minh Nguyen wrote: > I have written a draft of a tutorial on functional programming for > mathematicians. Very nice, i added a comment and I just repeat it here. I think you should also point to the "operator" python package, since defining add in a function is an overhead and

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

If you convert to numpy matrices, then Sage is pretty competitive with matlab. We still have some room for improvement in making it easy though - despite Jason Grout's improvements, a matrix over RDF is missing some methods I'd like, such as the singular value decomposition. As an example, to ext

Re: [sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

Hi Jason, On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Jason Grout wrote: > Do you think you could add a sentence or two in the filter section about > using list comprehensions to do filters, like you did above in the map > section? The tutorial is updated with such an example. Say the problem is to gen

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

On Dec 12, 5:56 pm, Jason Grout wrote: > There's apparently a lot more overhead than I would have imagined: > > sage: %timeit [v for v in (x for x in range(10) ) if v > 0] > 10 loops, best of 3: 5.4 s per loop > sage: %timeit [v for v in range(10) if v>0] > 10 loops, best of 3: 2.98 s per

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

Nils Bruin wrote: > On Dec 12, 4:24 pm, Jason Grout wrote: >> [f(x) for x in [1..10] if f(x)>0] > > This is actually bad style. It means that f gets evaluated twice for > all the values that end up in the list. Good point. > The magma language solves this with modified semantics for the "where"

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

On Dec 12, 4:24 pm, Jason Grout wrote: > [f(x) for x in [1..10] if f(x)>0] This is actually bad style. It means that f gets evaluated twice for all the values that end up in the list. The magma language solves this with modified semantics for the "where" clause. One would write: [ v : x in [1..1

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial on Python functional programming for mathematicians

Minh Nguyen wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have written a draft of a tutorial on functional programming for > mathematicians. The tutorial is available on the Sage wiki [1], but > you could also find it at Wordpress [2]. This is a redundancy measure > in case the wiki is down. I invite you to comments o

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

[This is getting a bit dated but I am endeavouring to post it simply to get my work out what is wrong with my subscription] I don't think this is as impossible as some people have suggested. Since there is a fairly heavy academic involvement in Sage: Maybe an expedition to the local School of La

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

Hi all would you please consider updating this page http://wiki.sagemath.org/i18n or any other? I think it is very important to have a well defined and commonly accepted process to manage translations. I don't know how, but probably there should be an automatic notification somewhere if the do

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

> To keep you and Nathann posted on changes to the Sage tutorial, both > of you can be CC'd on tickets that change the tutorial. That's one way > to keep up to date. Excellent ! Nathann --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googl

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Burcin Erocal wrote: > BTW, it seems that #4318 and #5337 should be closed. Ticket #5337 is now closed. I'm not sure about #4318; someone who knows French should look into that ticket. -- Regards Minh Van Nguyen --~--~-~--~~~---~--

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

Hi Philippe, On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Philippe Saade wrote: > I can help for the translation of Sage's tutorial in french. > > I would like to volunteer for the incorporation of new docs in french > on the sagemath.org/fr part of the official site. For each Sage release, I also build F

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:55:27 -0700 (PDT) John H Palmieri wrote: > How important is it that these documents stay synchronized? If it's > important, how should this be managed? Are there any francophones who > would like to volunteer to make a translation whenever the English > version is changed

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

Hi, I have not been very active last year on this list because of job changes but now Sage is one thing i will involve in with a more regular pace. I can help for the translation of Sage's tutorial in french. I would like to volunteer for the incorporation of new docs in french on the sagemath.

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

If there is an easy way ( = passive way. Translators are being kept aware of modifications ) to know when some modification is done, and if you do not expect it for the following morning. This should not be a problem at all to keep all the french tutorials up to date. The best way, perhaps, to be

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > wrote: >> John H Palmieri wrote: >>> I just noticed that there are some differences between the English and >>> French tutorials: first, they're written in totally different >>> languages. >>> >>> No, sorry, just kidding.

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > John H Palmieri wrote: >> I just noticed that there are some differences between the English and >> French tutorials: first, they're written in totally different >> languages. >> >> No, sorry, just kidding.  Actually, some paragraphs have

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: en vs. fr versions

John H Palmieri wrote: > I just noticed that there are some differences between the English and > French tutorials: first, they're written in totally different > languages. > > No, sorry, just kidding. Actually, some paragraphs have been added to > the English version without corresponding chang

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial / screencast

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM, casbon wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 6:59 pm, William Stein wrote: >> 2009/7/11 casbon : >> Any chance you could try out http://sagenb.org and give similar feedback? >> [to what you gave for codenode] > > This seems a lot clearer - the evaluate button works, blocks wor

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:22 PM, William Stein wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Dag Sverre > Seljebotn wrote: >> >> William Stein wrote: >>> Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to >>> focus in Sage more on the algebraic/symbolic side of mathematics >>> (e.g., Ma

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > William Stein wrote: >> Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to >> focus in Sage more on the algebraic/symbolic side of mathematics >> (e.g., Magma, Maple, Mathematica) rather than the numerical side, at >> least

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

So, here's the thing... and this is entirely IMHO (some may question whether the "H" applies :-) There's been some off-and-on sidebar chatter on this subject for a while and this thread seems a place to insert it publicly. Sage has a HUGE amount of functionality built in that is very useful to t

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > > Ondrej Certik wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Jason Grout >> wrote: >>> Ondrej Certik wrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM, William Stein wrote: > 2009/7/2 Stéfan van der Walt : >> 2009/7/1 William Stein : >>> Per

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Jason Grout > wrote: >> Ondrej Certik wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM, William Stein wrote: 2009/7/2 Stéfan van der Walt : > 2009/7/1 William Stein : >> Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > > Ondrej Certik wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM, William Stein wrote: >>> 2009/7/2 Stéfan van der Walt : 2009/7/1 William Stein : > Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to > focus in Sage more on

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM, William Stein wrote: >> 2009/7/2 Stéfan van der Walt : >>> 2009/7/1 William Stein : Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to focus in Sage more on the algebraic/symbolic side of mathematics (e.g., Magma

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM, William Stein wrote: > > 2009/7/2 Stéfan van der Walt : >> >> 2009/7/1 William Stein : >>> Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to >>> focus in Sage more on the algebraic/symbolic side of mathematics >>> (e.g., Magma, Maple, Mathematica) r

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

2009/7/2 Stéfan van der Walt : > > 2009/7/1 William Stein : >> Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to >> focus in Sage more on the algebraic/symbolic side of mathematics >> (e.g., Magma, Maple, Mathematica) rather than the numerical side, at >> least for the time being.

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

2009/7/1 William Stein : > Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to > focus in Sage more on the algebraic/symbolic side of mathematics > (e.g., Magma, Maple, Mathematica) rather than the numerical side, at > least for the time being.    I don't have a problem with that >

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM, William Stein wrote: > [...] >> Anyway, +1 to their being a BSD'd build system.    Most code in Sage >> is GPL'd because either (1) it is derived from code GPL'd a decade >> ago, or (2) we'll get ripped off b

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM, William Stein wrote: [...] > Anyway, +1 to their being a BSD'd build system.    Most code in Sage > is GPL'd because either (1) it is derived from code GPL'd a decade > ago, or (2) we'll get ripped off by the Ma's.    The build system > doesn't fall into either cate

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > > William Stein wrote: >> Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to >> focus in Sage more on the algebraic/symbolic side of mathematics >> (e.g., Magma, Maple, Mathematica) rather than the numerical side, at >>

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: >>> >>> Howdy, >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:57 AM, William Stein wrote: I have to add that not only is Sage very low o

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

William Stein wrote: > Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm taking this as a message to > focus in Sage more on the algebraic/symbolic side of mathematics > (e.g., Magma, Maple, Mathematica) rather than the numerical side, at > least for the time being.I don't have a problem with that > pers

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, William Stein wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: >> >> Howdy, >> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:57 AM, William Stein wrote: >>> I have to add that not only is Sage very low on the above list, Sage >>> got the *most* "no" votes from the 30

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Kevin Horton wrote: > > William Stein wrote: >> >> The best conclusion I can draw from all this is that for now at least >> I'm going to focus on symbolic/algebraic computation, and let >> Enthought continue to do a great job building the Python numerical >> stack.

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

William Stein wrote: > > The best conclusion I can draw from all this is that for now at least > I'm going to focus on symbolic/algebraic computation, and let > Enthought continue to do a great job building the Python numerical > stack. I think that the survey results are at least in part a reflec

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > > Howdy, > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:57 AM, William Stein wrote: >> I have to add that not only is Sage very low on the above list, Sage >> got the *most* "no" votes from the 30 people who actually voted (tying >> only with Networkx), accord

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: > I sort of doubt that most people would make their decisions on what > tools to learn based on licenses, or at least I hope that's the case. To be precise: amongst open source tools. I do use licenses as a criterion: if choosing between a p

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

Howdy, On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:57 AM, William Stein wrote: > I have to add that not only is Sage very low on the above list, Sage > got the *most* "no" votes from the 30 people who actually voted (tying > only with Networkx), according to the table here: > >    http://fdoperez.blogspot.com/2009/

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

William Stein wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM, William Stein wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: The time for the Scipy'09 conference is rapidly approaching, and we would like to b

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

Note that there was already a Python+Sage talk at a recent SIAM conference http://fdoperez.blogspot.com/2008/07/python-tools-for-science-go-to-siam.html http://www.ams.org/ams/siam-2008.html#python which was apparently very popular. It may be that those who attended the SIAM conference and who are

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Harald Schilly wrote: > > On Jul 1, 12:57 pm, William Stein wrote: >> >>    http://fdoperez.blogspot.com/2009/06/scipy-advanced-tutorials-results... >> >> I don't know if I should interpret this as: > > my interpretation is, that people simply want to learn more ab

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Jul 1, 12:57 pm, William Stein wrote: > >    http://fdoperez.blogspot.com/2009/06/scipy-advanced-tutorials-results... > > I don't know if I should interpret this as: my interpretation is, that people simply want to learn more about those tools which they already know about. sage isn't part of

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM, William Stein wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: >>> The time for the Scipy'09 conference is rapidly approaching, and we >>> would like to both announce the plan for

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: >> The time for the Scipy'09 conference is rapidly approaching, and we >> would like to both announce the plan for tutorials and solicit >> feedback from everyone on topics of i

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

Hi, On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > The time for the Scipy'09 conference is rapidly approaching, and we > would like to both announce the plan for tutorials and solicit > feedback from everyone on topics of interest. rather than rehash much here, where it's not easy to p

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Jason Grout wrote: > > Fernando Perez wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In order to proceed with contacting speakers, we'd now like to get >> some feedback from you.  This Doodle poll should take no more than a > > > Does "you" mean "people attending scipy09", or does it mea

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

Fernando Perez wrote: > Hi all, > > In order to proceed with contacting speakers, we'd now like to get > some feedback from you. This Doodle poll should take no more than a Does "you" mean "people attending scipy09", or does it mean "sage developers, whether or not you are attending scipy09"?

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

Hi all, In order to proceed with contacting speakers, we'd now like to get some feedback from you. This Doodle poll should take no more than a couple of minutes to fill out (no password or registration required): http://doodle.com/hb5bea6fivm3b5bk So please let us know which topics you are mos

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial topics for SciPy'09 Conference

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > Hi all, > > The time for the Scipy'09 conference is rapidly approaching, and we > would like to both announce the plan for tutorials and solicit > feedback from everyone on topics of interest. I hope the above isn't considered too off-topi

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: add something about functions vs. expressions, etc.?

Very nice. This something I always found confusing. One thing is not clear to me: why is "sin" not a callable symbolic expression by default? Is there a coneptional reason for this, or is it performance related? On Mar 10, 8:07 am, William Stein wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM, John H Pa

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: add something about functions vs. expressions, etc.?

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > It seems like specifying a function for plotting or differentiation is > a common point of confusion.  For example, see these threads (and I > know there have been others): > >

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: what to add

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:53 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What should be included in the tutorial that's not already there? In > another thread > > 77ddcfefa972bb9b/53fda9a549b12d63? > lnk=gst&q=dirichlet#53fda9

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: math questions about dirichlet characters

On May 30, 6:44 pm, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe they are better put in another place (Sage Constructions > perhaps), but I have some ideas for broadening the tutorial: > > 1) In calculus/differential equations, give a cythonized version of > Runge-Kutta, and maybe an @interact ex

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: math questions about dirichlet characters

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 6:44 PM, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe they are better put in another place (Sage Constructions > perhaps), but I have some ideas for broadening the tutorial: > > 1) In calculus/differential equations, give a cythonized version of > Runge-Kutta, and maybe an

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: math questions about dirichlet characters

> > Well, as I said, I'm trying to edit it. This will take several passes: > copy-editing (rewording, making the typesetting look better, etc.), > and then when I've done a big enough chunk, or when I see something > that seems out of place, thinking about re-organizing things. I don't > know if

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: math questions about dirichlet characters

Maybe they are better put in another place (Sage Constructions perhaps), but I have some ideas for broadening the tutorial: 1) In calculus/differential equations, give a cythonized version of Runge-Kutta, and maybe an @interact example on different numerical methods; there are a couple of @intera

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: math questions about dirichlet characters

On May 30, 5:17 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:33 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:27 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I'm working on rewriting the tutorial.  Section 2.5.1 of the tutorial

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: math questions about dirichlet characters

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:33 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:27 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I'm working on rewriting the tutorial. Section 2.5.1 of the tutorial >> is about Dirichlet characters, and I have some questions: >> >> Th

[sage-devel] Re: tutorial: math questions about dirichlet characters

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:27 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm working on rewriting the tutorial. Section 2.5.1 of the tutorial > is about Dirichlet characters, and I have some questions: > > The introductory sentence discusses "Dirichlet characters", and then > the first exa

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial to translate in french

Philippe wrote: > as I said last week, I am willing to give a little help for the usage > of SAGE in french educational system. One thing that showed to be > important was the availability of a tutorial in french. > > I would appreciate some experts on that list (;-) to point me to an > existing

[sage-devel] Re: Tutorial to translate in french

The "tutorial" and "constructions" links on http://www.sagemath.org/documentation.html are what you want. On Dec 2, 2007 12:41 PM, Philippe Saade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hi all, > > as I said last week, I am willing to give a little help for the usage > of SAGE in french educational syste