You are probably using Sage with Python 2. In Python 2, a list expression
involving an index variable `a` like
assume([U_asm[a] for a in [0, 1, 3]])
overwrites the previous content of the variable `a`. At the end of the
loop, `a` will have the value `3`, which leads to the output you obtain
Thank you, I did not notice it in my code.
Regards
Janusz
W dniu środa, 18 marca 2020 10:10:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Markus Wageringel
napisał:
>
> You are probably using Sage with Python 2. In Python 2, a list expression
> involving an index variable `a` like
>
> assume([U_asm[a] for a in [0
MWE:
sage: A = -17737878703644595885728157881856/2195118875780412735240966796875
sage: B =
76386743039924534000525642916220282669332545616695170155741184/4818546878807463076444691815463494370294881403446197509765625
sage: E = EllipticCurve([A,B])
sage: lcalc.analytic_rank(E)
This produces "***
Dear fellow developers,
I've encountered a really strange result in Sage while using Maxima.
|
sage:f(x,y)=(x^2-y^2)/(x^2+y^2)^2
sage:integrate(integrate(abs(f(x,y)),x,0,1),y,0,1)
-1/4*pi
|
This is really weird. At least, the result should be positive! SymPy
however yields the correct result:
Dear fellow developers,
I've encountered a really strange result in Sage while using Maxima.
sage: f(x,y) = (x^2-y^2)/(x^2+y^2)^2
sage: integrate(integrate(abs(f(x,y)), x, 0, 1), y, 0, 1)
-1/4*pi
This is really weird. At least, the result should be positive! SymPy
however yields th
I ran those two commands, and piped the output to a file, attached here.
Thanks.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 5:53 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:56:49 PM UTC-4, Christopher Duston wrote:
>>
>> I've got an error when compiling SageMath 9.0 from source on a Slackware
>> 1
Dear developers,
to reduce redundancies in the SageManifolds code, we plan to inherit most
methods and classes from a (mathematically) more general setup.
Still, the current documentation is mandatory. Is it possible to establish
new documentations for inherited methods?
An example:
class Moth
On 3/18/20 5:04 PM, Michael Jung wrote:
> Dear developers,
> to reduce redundancies in the SageManifolds code, we plan to inherit
> most methods and classes from a (mathematically) more general setup.
> Still, the current documentation is mandatory. Is it possible to
> establish new documentations
Damn it. Then I another question: Would it cause a slow-down if I
overwrite the method with something like
def my_method(self):
r"""
New Documentation
"""
Mother.my_method(self)
Best,
Michael
Am 19.03.2020 um 00:41 schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
On 3/18/20 5:04 P
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:58 PM Michael Jung
wrote:
> Damn it. Then I another question: Would it cause a slow-down if I
> overwrite the method with something like
>
> def my_method(self):
> r"""
> New Documentation
> """
> Mother.my_method(self)
>
>
This will take small amount of
What about
my_method = Mother.my_method
my_method.__doc__ = "new docstring"
Does that do what you want?
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 9:22:31 PM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:58 PM Michael Jung > wrote:
>
>> Damn it. Then I another question: Would it cause a slo
11 matches
Mail list logo
