On Aug 25, 4:02 am, "Johan S. R. Nielsen"
wrote:
> > 2. If one has a non-symbolic polynomial currently, it won't plot with
> > the new plotting syntax.
>
> > plot(f,0,5) # works, old-school Sage
> > plot(f,(x,0,5)) # doesn't work, new-school Sage
> > plot(f,x,0,5) # doesn't work, though sort of
> 2. If one has a non-symbolic polynomial currently, it won't plot with
> the new plotting syntax.
>
> plot(f,0,5) # works, old-school Sage
> plot(f,(x,0,5)) # doesn't work, new-school Sage
> plot(f,x,0,5) # doesn't work, though sort of makes sense it shouldn't
> since x isn't a symbolic variable n
> > > 1. There is no way to get a symbolic interpolated polynomial de novo
> > > without going through polynomial rings, e.g. all these steps:
> > >
> > > pts = [(1,2),(2,3),(3,2),(4,3),(5,2),(6,3)]
> > > R.=QQ[]
> > > f = R.lagrange_polynomial(pts)
> > > SR(f)
> > >
Everything you're doin
On Aug 24, 10:51 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 09:03 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> > Dear sage-devel,
> >
> > I have two things I just want confirmation of before I file tickets -
> > such as an alternate way/workaround to do these things which I have
> > missed. Thanks for any replies.
>
On 08/24/2010 09:03 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> Dear sage-devel,
>
> I have two things I just want confirmation of before I file tickets -
> such as an alternate way/workaround to do these things which I have
> missed. Thanks for any replies.
>
> - kcrisman
>
> 1. There is no way to get a symbolic inte
On Aug 24, 10:03 am, kcrisman wrote:
> Dear sage-devel,
>
> I have two things I just want confirmation of before I file tickets -
> such as an alternate way/workaround to do these things which I have
> missed. Thanks for any replies.
>
> - kcrisman
>
> 1. There is no way to get a symbolic inter
