Ryan Hinton wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I saw a suggestion recently on the sage list to set the random seed at
> the beginning of each doctest so previously "random" outputs could be
> tested. I'm writing some 'pick a random member from this (very large)
> set' routines, so I could use this functional
On Oct 10, 5:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ryan Hinton wrote:
> > Jason,
>
> > I saw a suggestion recently on the sage list to set the random seed at
> > the beginning of each doctest so previously "random" outputs could be
> > tested. I'm writing some 'pick a random member from this (very la
(this might be mainly directed towards schilly):
Is there an easy way to make an animation of an @interact as a slider
goes through its values? Something like schilly's Taylor Series
interact at http://wiki.sagemath.org/interact/calculus.
Thanks,
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~
mcdewey wrote:
>> min is a builtin python function and isn't smart
>> about symbolic functions; it just returns the first thing when it comes
>> to symbolic expressions:
>>
> ...
>> I would do this like:
>>
>> sage: min(f(-10,-10) for f in [e1,e2,e3])
>> -127
>>
>> In other words, evaluate the fu
> min is a builtin python function and isn't smart
> about symbolic functions; it just returns the first thing when it comes
> to symbolic expressions:
>
...
> I would do this like:
>
> sage: min(f(-10,-10) for f in [e1,e2,e3])
> -127
>
> In other words, evaluate the functions before calling min.
mcdewey wrote:
> Given the following input;
> sage: var('x')
> sage: var('y')
> sage: e1 = (y + x + 2)
> sage: e2 = (y - x^2 + 2*x + 3)
> sage: e3 = (y + x + 42)
> sage: e4 = min(e1, e2, e3)
> sage: e4(-10, -10)
>
> I get the result -18. (the value of e1(-10, -10)
>
> I would expect to get -127
I am using version;
'SAGE Version 3.1.2, Release Date: 2008-09-19'
mcdewey
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit thi
Given the following input;
sage: var('x')
sage: var('y')
sage: e1 = (y + x + 2)
sage: e2 = (y - x^2 + 2*x + 3)
sage: e3 = (y + x + 42)
sage: e4 = min(e1, e2, e3)
sage: e4(-10, -10)
I get the result -18. (the value of e1(-10, -10)
I would expect to get -127 (the value of e2(-10,-10)
I want the s
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, john_perry_usm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try adding another 1. Apparently I copied & pasted the wrong one.
>
I can reproduce it on a 64 bit box:
sage:
round(sqrt(1
I just get:
1.05409255339e+154
when I input your example.
-M. Hampton
On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, john_perry_usm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure. This fails in exactly the fashion I mean:
> sage:
> round(sqrt(1
On Oct 10, 3:48 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any chance this could be merged into 3.1.3 to get wider
> testing? That is, if it's a purely optional framework. Barring that,
> is there a chance we could get a single huge patch that consolidates all
> of this, or even
Try adding another 1. Apparently I copied & pasted the wrong one.
On Oct 10, 6:01 pm, Marshall Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just get:
> 1.05409255339e+154
> when I input your example.
>
> -M. Hampton
>
> On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, john_perry_usm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sure. This fail
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:35:16 -0500
> Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The general request still stands, though: is there a way to
>> numerically approximate all the constants in a symbolic expression,
>> but keep the variables as variables?
>
> The pynac based s
Sure. This fails in exactly the fashion I mean:
sage:
round(sqrt(1
On Oct 10, 1:55 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We really ought to include these fonts with Sage and have the error
> message say: "Here are some fonts. Install them. If you want darker or
> lighter variations, go here (link to the website)"
#1608 :)
> Jason
Cheers,
Michael
Doug Bradshaw wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> On Aug 24, 8:46 am, "Philippe Saade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> i post this here for future newbies who might encounter the same problem...
>>
>> ** on Linux/Ubuntu 8.04, under Firefox 2 or 3, with all TexFonts
>> installed, i kept having this error
Thanks!
On Aug 24, 8:46 am, "Philippe Saade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i post this here for future newbies who might encounter the same problem...
>
> ** on Linux/Ubuntu 8.04, under Firefox 2 or 3, with all TexFonts
> installed, i kept having this error message :
>
> It looks like jsMa
Hi John,
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:36 PM, john_perry_usm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm working with a biologist on some data, and having trouble getting
> SAGE to solve quadratic polynomials with complicated coefficients.
> Using solve() returns nothing even when there is a solution, perhaps
Hi,
I'm working with a biologist on some data, and having trouble getting
SAGE to solve quadratic polynomials with complicated coefficients.
Using solve() returns nothing even when there is a solution, perhaps
because sqrt() returns a "math range error".
Does anyone have any advice on how to get
On Oct 10, 10:02 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Burcin Erocal wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:35:16 -0500
> > Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The general request still stands, though: is there a way to
> >> numerically approximate all the constants in a symbolic exp
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:35:16 -0500
> Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The general request still stands, though: is there a way to
>> numerically approximate all the constants in a symbolic expression,
>> but keep the variables as variables?
>
> The pynac based s
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:35:16 -0500
Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The general request still stands, though: is there a way to
> numerically approximate all the constants in a symbolic expression,
> but keep the variables as variables?
The pynac based symbolics code does the following:
William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:11 AM, Jason Grout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How do I get a numeric approximation for symbolic expressions that have
>> variables? I want to leave the variables alone, but get numeric
>> approximations for all constants. For example, here's
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:11 AM, Jason Grout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How do I get a numeric approximation for symbolic expressions that have
> variables? I want to leave the variables alone, but get numeric
> approximations for all constants. For example, here's how it works in
> mathemat
How do I get a numeric approximation for symbolic expressions that have
variables? I want to leave the variables alone, but get numeric
approximations for all constants. For example, here's how it works in
mathematica:
In[1]:= a:=1+Sqrt[2]*x
In[2]:= a
Out[2]= 1 + Sqrt[2] x
In[3]:= N[a]
O
alright, here's how you do the completion with gedit. It's not that it
stopped working, it's just a bug i hadn't noticed before. There a
quite a few flaws -- help appreciated if you know a way to improve on
this ! so currently:
-- only the last word on the line can be completed (true, it's usuall
> Do you have these changes posted somewhere? I'd like to try it out, if
> possible.
er, no, but here are a few hints. First try
sage -grep "def" | grep "def " >~/.sage/sage_doc
so you have a file in your .sage folder containing all the lines in
SAGE's code containing the word "def " (i don't
27 matches
Mail list logo
