My opinion:
What you call the classical adjoint is really the adjugate. That is
abbreviated to adj, and since there is also an adjoint, it is a common
error to call the adjugate the adjoint.
I would not be surprised if there plenty of elementary linear algebra
texts out there who describe adj(A)
On 1 December 2010 20:58, Adam wrote:
> To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
> expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
> running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
> expected. The main issue I could see with changing the
On 1 December 2010 21:00, Adam wrote:
> To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
> expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
> running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
> expected. The main issue I could see with changing the
Thanks. I will monitor this ticket an starting building it on my own.
I will update you or the ticket if I have any problems.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> It would be interesting to compare Intel MKL vs. AMD ACML vs. threaded
> ATLAS.
>
> The most useful optimization r
> For a complex square matrix the genuine adjoint is denoted A^* and is
> the conjugate transpose. That is a special case of the adjoint of a
> linear operator on an inner product space (in the case of C^n with the
> standard inner product).
That's what I thought, too. We should definitely chan
My message is in two parts.
The first one is more about Polymake vs Sage. The second is about how
polytopes are constructed in Sage.
For a couple of weeks now, I need to work with polytopes and the
Polyhedron class.
I'm a student currently at Techniche Universität Berlin, so Polyma
Disclaimer; I am not a bar room lawyer, etc.
I think this phrase may be key;
"...incidental results or small groups of results from Wolfram|Alpha
on non-commercial websites and blogs..."
It depends on one's working definition of "small", maybe they are
deliberately ambiguous here.
"A dozen or so..
My personal roadmap for Sage's Polyhedron class is:
1) wait until PPL is a standard spkg, see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10039
Right now Sage is communicating with cddlib via virtual terminals by
printing/parsing ascii text. This is obviously slow. The PPL Cython
interface, which
> But its less clear there is an agreed alternative for HTTPSconnections.
I suppose it is mostly by convention rather than an official port
assignment. Default ports for HTTP and HTTPS are 80 and 443,
respectively. Since non-root users usually cannot use the first 1024
ports, 8080 gets used for HT
On 2 December 2010 16:31, RegB <2regburg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Disclaimer; I am not a bar room lawyer, etc.
>
> I think this phrase may be key;
> "...incidental results or small groups of results from Wolfram|Alpha
> on non-commercial websites and blogs..."
> It depends on one's working defini
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>>> I do think it would be good to start using nosetest
>>> (http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.2/) to
>>> automatically run all functions that start with "test_" in all
> >> I suggested 'nose' was added a long time ago
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/928632...
>
> >> the only person to reply (Robert Bradshaw) disagreed.
>
> I think there's a distinction between an spkg that people might find
> useful to use with Sage, and an s
On 12/2/10 12:42 PM, kcrisman wrote:
That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose
from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg-
check that relied on the internet... but that wouldn't be ideal, I
think.
But that would also prevent yet another spkg to
On Dec 2, 10:20 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On the topic of verifying tests, I think internal consistency checks
> are much better, both pedagogically and for verifiability, than
> external checks against other (perhaps inaccessible) systems. For
> example, the statement above that checks a power
On Dec 1, 9:02 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> I've also filed a bug with
>Sage:http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10365
>
> I've filed an enhancement request with
> Sage:http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10366
>
Thanks for your help; those do work for me now.
Thanks for filing those t
If you are looking for an easy ticket to review for practice, see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10422
which is just a single-character change to the documentation.
Rob
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an ema
On Dec 2, 1:46 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 12/2/10 12:42 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose
> > from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg-
> > check that relied on the internet... but that wouldn't be ideal, I
> >
To follow up my own thing, maybe it would be possible to write a spkg-
check that tries to detect nose, exits gracefully if it's not there,
and otherwise uses a system nose... though of course then one would be
using the system Python... wouldn't one?
- kcrisman
--
To post to this group, send an
On 12/2/10 2:03 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
If you are looking for an easy ticket to review for practice, see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10422
which is just a single-character change to the documentation.
Rob
I've added it to the "beginner" list:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:16 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> What you call the classical adjoint is really the adjugate. That is
> abbreviated to adj, and since there is also an adjoint, it is a common
> error to call the adjugate the adjoint.
Do you have a reference for this convention? I had never se
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:28 PM, pang wrote:
>>> On 1 dic, 17:40, David Kirkby wrote:
. But for someone that regularly submits tickets, if they can't be bothered
to test them
On 2 December 2010 18:20, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On the topic of verifying tests, I think internal consistency checks
> are much better, both pedagogically and for verifiability, than
> external checks against other (perhaps inaccessible) systems. For
> example, the statement above that checks
On Dec 2, 8:51 pm, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:16 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> > What you call the classical adjoint is really the adjugate. That is
> > abbreviated to adj, and since there is also an adjoint, it is a common
> > error to call the adjugate the adjoint.
>
> Do
> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a
> > release cycle later to see that some corner case was missed that
> > affected a doctest far away and now they need a tiny fix + rebase +
> > context
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
>> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a
>> > release cycle later to see that some corner case was missed that
>> > affected a doctest far aw
On Dec 2, 10:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> >> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
> >> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two weeks and a
> >> > release cycle later to see that some corn
On 11/30/2010 02:49 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:50 PM, John H Palmieri
> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 2:24 pm, Niles wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 9:11 am, John Cremona wrote:
>>>
Can anyone tell me how to make just part of the pdf reference manual,
specifically the part from
Query: why would we use wolfram alpha, when (for example) the
University of Washington has a site license for mathematica? It would
be more efficient, and take less work to write mathematica scripts to
double-check our work, and ask William (or another UW person) to run
the tests on a UW machine?
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:59 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>> Do you have a reference for this convention? I had never seen the word
>> "adjugate" before.
>
> At least in an older edition of Lay's Linear Algebra book (fairly
> widely used) uses this, and points out there is a "real" adjoint which
> is not c
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:32 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 2, 10:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> >> > I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go and
>> >> > take care of anything they missed rather than wait two w
Planet Math page (below) says H. Eves (Elementary Matrix Theory, Dover
publications, 1980) uses "tranjugate." Maybe that is the solution
here. ;-)
Thanks, Gonzalo, John and KDC - I continue to learn a lot from the
collective knowledge here.
I do not know the source of any of these terms, but he
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 at 06:28PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On this note: http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/
Oooh, that's cool. I like the links on trac. Now I need to go and fix my
patches that don't apply any more.
Dan
--
--- Dan Drake
- http://mathsci.kaist.ac.kr/~drake
--
Jean-Philippe,
if you feel adventurous, you might try using PPL with Sage, as Volker
suggests.
I understand that the basic functionality is already there.
You can also develop a Cython interface to cddlib, to get Sage on par
with Polymake in this regard.
Dmitrii
--
To post to this group, send a
Right, "adjoint" should mean "conjugate transpose", and not "classical
adjoint/adjugate".
But for "conjugate transpose" one can just introduce operator ^*, as
usually
the conjugate transpose of $A$ is denoted by $A^*$.
Dunno how much Sage code this would break, though...
Dmitrii
On Dec 2, 12:47
On Dec 2, 10:55 pm, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> But for "conjugate transpose" one can just introduce operator ^*, as
> usually
> the conjugate transpose of $A$ is denoted by $A^*$.
Accepted notation is another can of worms. Conjugate-transpose can be
an exponent that is a star, dagger or the letter
35 matches
Mail list logo
