[sage-devel] Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

Is it possible to avoid need to declare variables with var commands? Mathematica doesn't need var commands so people coming from Mathematica may get confused when they issue their first plot command in Sage. Chris --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send

[sage-devel] Possible to improve "inconsistency" between notations for exponentiation?

Python uses "**" for exponentiation. Sage syntax uses the much nicer "^". Won't this lead to problems/confusion since Sage uses python code to define functions but not to *invoke* those functions? Chris --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sa

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Nov 2, 2008, at 00:01 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Is it possible to avoid need to declare variables with var commands? > > Mathematica doesn't need var commands so people coming from > Mathematica may get confused when they issue their first plot command > in Sage. The tutorial and refere

[sage-devel] Re: Possible to improve "inconsistency" between notations for exponentiation?

On Nov 1, 2008, at 23:58 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Python uses "**" for exponentiation. > Sage syntax uses the much nicer "^". > Won't this lead to problems/confusion since Sage uses python code to > define functions but not to *invoke* those functions? Changing "^" to "**" would improve t

[sage-devel] Re: Possibly useful webpage

I'm sure several Sage people know Wieb Bosma, who worked in the Magma group in Sydney for several years, and whoseem to be the maintainer of that page. Let me know if he does not respond. John 2008/11/2 Hazem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > William, > > You should add Sage to the site SymbolicNet ht

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.2.alpha2 released

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 at 05:43AM -0400, David Joyner wrote: > I went through 5 passes, and sage -testall kept locking up at various > places, so I rebuilt > Sage. I also tested to see if the tarball was coorupted but it seems > the download went okay. > > After the rebuild, the same lockup occurs. T

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.2.alpha2 released

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Dan Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 at 05:43AM -0400, David Joyner wrote: >> I went through 5 passes, and sage -testall kept locking up at various >> places, so I rebuilt >> Sage. I also tested to see if the tarball was coorupted but it seems

[sage-devel] sage on google knol

Hi, I've started a small article about Sage on google knol. I don't know if it is any good, but worth a try i think (web statistics will tell me). It's not like wikipedia, where articles should have a neutral point of view - instead - it is more subjective and therefore ok if it is written by Sage

[sage-devel] Re: Possibly useful webpage

John Cremona wrote: > I'm sure several Sage people know Wieb Bosma, who worked in the Magma > group in Sydney for several years, and whoseem to be the maintainer of > that page. Let me know if he does not respond. > > John > April 2007 I asked Wieb to co author with me an article on Sage for t

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.2.alpha2 released

I went through 5 passes, and sage -testall kept locking up at various places, so I rebuilt Sage. I also tested to see if the tarball was coorupted but it seems the download went okay. After the rebuild, the same lockup occurs. This last time, it froze at calculus.py. When I ran sage -t --verbose

[sage-devel] patches for the calculus code

Hi, I have written some code for the Maxima interface. You can find the patches at: http://www.math.tugraz.at/~huss/sage calculus1.patch implements the conversion from Maxima matrices to Sage matrices. calculus2.patch adds symbolic gamma and factorial functions. (The factorial is named fact()

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Nov 2, 8:27 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People coming from a Mathematica background should not assume that   > they know all there is to know about how to use a Computer Algebra   > System... no, better not, but sage isn't the answer to the question of all questions eit

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

Dear Chris On Nov 2, 2:01 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it possible to avoid need to declare variables with var commands? > > Mathematica doesn't need var commands so people coming from > Mathematica may get confused when they issue their first plot command > in Sage. O

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.2.alpha2 released

mabshoff wrote: > > > Ok, I am about to open tickets and post patches for all the numerical > noise I have seen on x86, x86-64, Itanium and a G5. > On Fedora 9, 32 bits: -- The following tests failed: sage -t devel

[sage-devel] Error when upgrading to sage 3.1.4

Hello, system: Ubuntu Hardy I just wanted to upgrade to sage 3.1.4 from 3.1.1 doing a ./sage -upgrade and I get the following error message: [...] -- sage: Building and installing modified SAGE library files. Installing c_lib scons: `in

[sage-devel] Re: Error when upgrading to sage 3.1.4

On Nov 2, 7:19 am, Tobias Eberle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > system: Ubuntu Hardy > > I just wanted to upgrade to sage 3.1.4 from 3.1.1 doing a ./sage > -upgrade and I get the following error message: Hi, > Building sage/structure/parent_old.c because it depends on > sage/structure

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.2.alpha2 released

On Nov 2, 5:06 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Look for lisp processes. I'm also using amd64 Ubuntu 8.10 and have had > > big problems with lisp randomly hanging -- it doesn't crash, it just > > sits doing nothing. This behavior is random but not very frequent. I > > also see

[sage-devel] Branch cuts of complex functions

I just got burned by the fact that the sage documentation does not specify the branch cut of the Ei function. A simple experiment show that it lies along the positive real axis. In Maple it apparently lies along the negative real axis...(this is specified in the documentation). In principle the

[sage-devel] Re: Branch cuts of complex functions

On Sunday 02 November 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In principle the documentation of a complex function should specify > its branchcuts "Implement it and send me a patch" ;-) Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 _www: http:

[sage-devel] Re: Branch cuts of complex functions

> > "Implement it and send me a patch" ;-) > I know :-( Unfortunately I have no time to go through all the definitionssigh... With my post I just wanted to raise awareness of this issue. Regards, Michel --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this gro

[sage-devel] Re: Error when upgrading to sage 3.1.4

Hi Michael, > This very much looks like a merge issue problem. Do you have any > modifications to the Sage library that had to be merged during the > update? Do you have multiple heads in the main Sage repo? you are right, there is a patch from mine for the list_plot bug (ignoring ndarrays). Aft

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

Justin C. Walker wrote: > On Nov 2, 2008, at 00:01 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Is it possible to avoid need to declare variables with var commands? Sage has adopted Python's evaluation policy, in which it is an error to evaluate an undefined variable. Mathematica adopted Macsyma's policy, in

[sage-devel] Re: Error when upgrading to sage 3.1.4

On Nov 2, 8:49 am, Tobias Eberle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Michael, Hi Tobias, > > This very much looks like a merge issue problem. Do you have any > > modifications to the Sage library that had to be merged during the > > update? Do you have multiple heads in the main Sage repo? > > you

[sage-devel] Re: Branch cuts of complex functions

How about this? John On Nov 2, 8:46 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Implement it and send me a patch" ;-) > > I know :-(           Unfortunately I have no time to go through > all > the definitionssigh... > > Wi

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Justin C. Walker wrote: > >> On Nov 2, 2008, at 00:01 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > Is it possible to avoid need to declare variables with var commands? > > Sage has adopted Python's evaluation policy, in which it is

[sage-devel] Re: Possibly useful webpage

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John Cremona wrote: >> I'm sure several Sage people know Wieb Bosma, who worked in the Magma >> group in Sydney for several years, and whoseem to be the maintainer of >> that page. Let me know if he does not respond. >> >>

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

Hi! On Nov 2, 6:18 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> People coming from a Mathematica background should not assume that > >> they know all there is to know about how to use a Computer Algebra > >> System, and instead, read the documentation. > > > This is so obnoxiously wrong, I

[sage-devel] Re: Branch cuts of complex functions

Thanks a lot ! Michel On Nov 2, 6:16 pm, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about this? > > > >   John > > On Nov 2, 8:46 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > "Implement it and send me a patch" ;-) > > > I know.

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

William Stein wrote: > I personally Python well suited to mathematical computation, No problem with any computation involving literal objects. It's the symbolic stuff that's lacking. > and at least the approach in Python regarding undefined variables > is consistent with every other general pur

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Nov 2, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Robert Dodier wrote: >> > Apparently Maple also does not require variables to be declared > (to judge by their quick start guide). Neither does Maxima/Macsyma > nor MuPAD nor PARI/GP ftr. > For most work, Maple doesn't require you to define symbolic variables. One doe

[sage-devel] Re: sage on google knol

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Harald Schilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, I've started a small article about Sage on google knol. I don't > know if it is any good, but worth a try i think (web statistics will > tell me). It's not like wikipedia, where articles should have a > neutral point

[sage-devel] Re: Possibly useful webpage

William Stein wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> John Cremona wrote: >>> I'm sure several Sage people know Wieb Bosma, who worked in the Magma >>> group in Sydney for several years, and whoseem to be the maintainer of >>> that page. Let me know if he

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi! > > On Nov 2, 6:18 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> People coming from a Mathematica background should not assume that >> >> they know all there is to know about how to use a Computer Algebra >> >> S

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Sunday 02 November 2008, Tim Lahey wrote: > On Nov 2, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Robert Dodier wrote: > > Apparently Maple also does not require variables to be declared > > (to judge by their quick start guide). Neither does Maxima/Macsyma > > nor MuPAD nor PARI/GP ftr. > > For most work, Maple doesn't

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William Stein wrote: > >> I personally Python well suited to mathematical computation, Wow, I omitted a lot of words from that sentence. > No problem with any computation involving literal objects. > It's the symbolic st

[sage-devel] Re: patches for the calculus code

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Wilfried_Huss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have written some code for the Maxima interface. > You can find the patches at: > http://www.math.tugraz.at/~huss/sage > > calculus1.patch implements the conversion from Maxima > matrices to Sage matrices. > >

[sage-devel] Re: patches for the calculus code

On Nov 2, 11:38 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Wilfried_Huss > Hi, > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I have written some code for the Maxima interface. > > You can find the patches at: > >  http://www.math.tugraz.at/~huss/sage > >

[sage-devel] Re: patches for the calculus code

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 2, 11:38 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Wilfried_Huss >> > > Hi, > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > I have written some code for the Maxima int

[sage-devel] Re: Possible to improve "inconsistency" between notations for exponentiation?

On Nov 1, 11:30 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Changing "^" to "**" would improve the consistency, not the   > inconsistency  :-} > > I know what you mean, but I think we're wedded to the difference. What about if Sage modified Python syntax slightly? For example, what if Sag

[sage-devel] Re: Possible to improve "inconsistency" between notations for exponentiation?

On Nov 2, 12:08 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 1, 11:30 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Changing "^" to "**" would improve the consistency, not the   > > inconsistency  :-} > > > I know what you mean, but I think we're wedded to the difference

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

2008/11/2 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> William Stein wrote: >> >>> I personally Python well suited to mathematical computation, > > Wow, I omitted a lot of words from that sentence. > >> No problem with any comp

[sage-devel] Re: patches for the calculus code

On Nov 2, 12:07 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 2, 11:38 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Wilfried_Huss > > > Hi, > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Nov 2, 12:22 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/11/2 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > OK, let's do that. > > How much of the problem would go away if the standard startup file had >  var('a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z') > in it?  So that var()

[sage-devel] Re: patches for the calculus code

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 2, 12:07 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > On Nov 2, 11:38 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Sun, N

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

2008/11/2 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Nov 2, 12:22 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/11/2 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> > OK, let's do that. >> >> How much of the problem would go away if the standard startup file had >> var('a b c d e f g h i j k l

[sage-devel] Re: patches for the calculus code

On Nov 2, 12:36 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I do not disagree, but I would much rather see fundamental > > functionality directly implemented in Sage than to use Maxima for say > > the generatio

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:22 PM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How much of the problem would go away if the standard startup file had > var('a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z') > in it? So that var() only had to be used explicitly for longer variable > names? > > J

[sage-devel] Re: sage on google knol

On Nov 2, 8:12 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >   Are there related articles in knol that > you know of that one might look at to get a sense of what the Sage > page should potentially look like in the long run? No, not really, but since it is more a collection of articles than a

[sage-devel] Re: sagenb.org

> But I would highly suggest that someone (i.e. you) make phc detection > much more robust. "which" usually returns an error code unequal to > zero (it doesn't on Solaris :(), so that is what you should check and > otherwise throw a proper exception. > So I ended up doing something like this on #

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

> I personally Python well suited to mathematical computation, > and at least the approach in Python regarding undefined variables > is consistent with every other general purpose programming > language I've ever used. But it is definitely different than Mathematica. The problem lies in the fac

[sage-devel] Re: sage on google knol

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Harald Schilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 2, 8:12 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Are there related articles in knol that >> you know of that one might look at to get a sense of what the Sage >> page should potentially look like in the

[sage-devel] Re: sagenb.org

don't know if this is "the right"(tm) way to do it, but it seems more pythonic: import os [p for p in os.environ['PATH'].split(':') if os.path.exists('%s/%s' % (p,'phc'))] which should return a list with the paths in which the file 'phc' exists, or an empty list if it doesn't Ronan Paixão Em D

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

Would it be possible to have a beginners mode where undefined variables are allowed? A user could easily change the mode to standard using say set_mode_standard() or something similar. Maybe have Sage state the mode both on the command line and in the notebook. The only problem would be that some

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I personally Python well suited to mathematical computation, >> and at least the approach in Python regarding undefined variables >> is consistent with every other general purpose programming >> language I've ever used.

[sage-devel] Re: sagenb.org

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > don't know if this is "the right"(tm) way to do it, but it seems more > pythonic: > > import os > [p for p in os.environ['PATH'].split(':') if os.path.exists('%s/%s' % > (p,'phc'))] > > which should return a list with the

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Timothy Clemans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would it be possible to have a beginners mode where undefined > variables are allowed? Nobody has proposed a technically feasible way to actually do this yet, so I don't know whether or not it is possible.I suspect

[sage-devel] Re: Why Sage needs var(...) commands unlike Mathematica?

On Nov 2, 4:23 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sage: f(x,y,z,theta) = x+y-z/theta    # I didn't ever do var('x,y,z,theta') > sage: f.integrate(theta) > (x, y, z, theta) |--> -log(theta)*z + theta*y + theta*x Yes thank you. That is a very nice way to do it. cs --~--~-

[sage-devel] Re: Possible to improve "inconsistency" between notations for exponentiation?

On Nov 2, 12:14 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sage already does that via its preparser: > > sage: x^2 > x^2 > sage: x**2 > x^2 > sage: preparse("x^2") > 'x**Integer(2)' Yes but I don't think you are claiming that Python code can use ^ for exponentials are you? Actually I'm moving to

[sage-devel] Re: The Sage .spkg extension

I could agree with using .spkg even if it was only for readability, but a nice idea is: why can't we just use .egg ? It's pythonic and already a standard in python world. Also, there are tools available to deal with them (tools already included in sage). They can pack C stuff if needed and fancy t

[sage-devel] Re: Possible to improve "inconsistency" between notations for exponentiation?

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 2, 12:14 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sage already does that via its preparser: >> >> sage: x^2 >> x^2 >> sage: x**2 >> x^2 >> sage: preparse("x^2") >> 'x**Integer(2)' > > Yes but I don't thin

[sage-devel] Re: sagenb.org

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Gaël <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi William, hi sage developpers, > > I have been trying to send e-mail to this group from my main mail > account, > but it is failing, so I'll just use gmail (Google got me). > > So, the sagenb.org server has been reset (yeah, fo

[sage-devel] Re: sagenb.org

Em Dom, 2008-11-02 às 16:26 -0800, William Stein escreveu: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > don't know if this is "the right"(tm) way to do it, but it seems more > > pythonic: > > > > import os > > [p for p in os.environ['PATH'].split(':') if os.pat

[sage-devel] Re: sagenb.org

On Nov 2, 5:32 pm, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Em Dom, 2008-11-02 às 16:26 -0800, William Stein escreveu: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > don't know if this is "the right"(tm) way to do it, but it seems more > > > pythonic:

[sage-devel] Re: sagenb.org

Em Dom, 2008-11-02 às 17:51 -0800, mabshoff escreveu: > > > On Nov 2, 5:32 pm, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Em Dom, 2008-11-02 às 16:26 -0800, William Stein escreveu: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > don't know i

[sage-devel] Re: sagenb.org

On Nov 2, 6:09 pm, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Em Dom, 2008-11-02 às 17:51 -0800, mabshoff escreveu: > > It is not sufficient that at least one exec bit is set, it has to be > > the right one depending on ownership. I really don't see any benefit > > over using "which" - aside f

[sage-devel] Re: The Sage .spkg extension

On Nov 2, 4:48 pm, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I could agree with using .spkg even if it was only for readability, but > a nice idea is: why can't we just use .egg ? It's pythonic and already a > standard in python world. Also, there are tools available to deal with > them (tools a

[sage-devel] Re: Possibly useful webpage

Maybe you guys already know this, but I found that Wikipedia provides good starting sources and references if you are searching for mathematical and CAS libraries that could be included in Sage at some point. For example, searching "computer algebra" led me to a Wikipedia article with the followi