On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 at 06:52PM -0800, Kwankyu wrote:
> --
> | Sage Version 3.2.1, Release Date: 2008-12-01 |
> | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
> -
I'm trying to plot a couple of vectors (using arrows) and their
projections on the x- and y- axes (using lines):
a1=arrow((0,0),(3,1),rgbcolor=(0,1,1))
a2=arrow((0,0),(-3.5,2.5),rgbcolor=(0,0,1))
l1=line([(0,0),(-3.5,0)],rgbcolor=(1,0,0))
l2=line([(0,0),(0,2.5)],rgbcolor=(0,1,0))
p=point((3,1),rg
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Kwankyu wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > --
> > | Sage Version 3.2.1, Release Date: 2008-12-01 |
> > | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
> > -
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Kwankyu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> --
> | Sage Version 3.2.1, Release Date: 2008-12-01 |
> | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
> --
Hi,
--
| Sage Version 3.2.1, Release Date: 2008-12-01 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
--
sage: 2.2
Sorry for the double post. Thunderbird had an error, so I didn't think
that it got posted the first time.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support-
I recently have been corresponding with a local computer science
professor about contributing some code to Sage, particularly with some
students. I wrote the following to try to address how Sage might be
used in a software engineering class or as a way to give a
independent-study student expe
I've been discussing Sage recently with a local computer science
professor, who is now interested in contributing some code to Sage. I
just sent him a long email explaining some code, but wrote the following
paragraph too. I thought people might be interested in commenting (or
Harald might b
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 13, 10:33 am, Jason Grout wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Very few people. I only did it the "wrong" way, because Magma does
>>> things the "wrong" way, and David Kohel convinced me to stay
>>> consistent with that convention. Sage was originally inte
On Dec 13, 10:33 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
> > Very few people. I only did it the "wrong" way, because Magma does
> > things the "wrong" way, and David Kohel convinced me to stay
> > consistent with that convention. Sage was originally intended to be
> > very similar t
William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>>> On Dec 13, 5:16 am, "Thomas Kahle" wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
> I think that the main reason that Sage uses rows rather than columns
> by default (example: eigenvectors are left eigenvectors
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> mabshoff wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 5:16 am, "Thomas Kahle" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
I think that the main reason that Sage uses rows rather than columns
by default (example: eigenvectors are left eigenvectors by default,
i.e. v*A=lamb
mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 13, 5:16 am, "Thomas Kahle" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>> I think that the main reason that Sage uses rows rather than columns
>>> by default (example: eigenvectors are left eigenvectors by default,
>>> i.e. v*A=lambda*A and not A*v=lambda*v , whereas most -- but not all
>>> --
On Dec 13, 5:16 am, "Thomas Kahle" wrote:
Hi,
> > I think that the main reason that Sage uses rows rather than columns
> > by default (example: eigenvectors are left eigenvectors by default,
> > i.e. v*A=lambda*A and not A*v=lambda*v , whereas most -- but not all
> > -- linear algebra textbook
>
> I think that the main reason that Sage uses rows rather than columns
> by default (example: eigenvectors are left eigenvectors by default,
> i.e. v*A=lambda*A and not A*v=lambda*v , whereas most -- but not all
> -- linear algebra textbooks use the other convention is that that is
> the case
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Joyner wrote:
> Two comments:
> (1) in the theory of linear block codes, a basis of the code is
> represented by the rows of the generating martix, by standard
> convention. So, from that perspective, the way things are for
> lattices makes sens
I think that the main reason that Sage uses rows rather than columns
by default (example: eigenvectors are left eigenvectors by default,
i.e. v*A=lambda*A and not A*v=lambda*v , whereas most -- but not all
-- linear algebra textbooks use the other convention is that that is
the case in Magma.
Th
Two comments:
(1) in the theory of linear block codes, a basis of the code is
represented by the rows of the generating martix, by standard
convention. So, from that perspective, the way things are for
lattices makes sense (of course a lattice gives rise to a binary
code by reducing mod 2).
(2) Ch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I'm slightly confused about the following computation I tried to do with
integer lattices. I typically represent them as a matrix A such that the
lattice is the image of that matrix. But somehow the image seems to be
different in sage than in
Hi,
Sage: A = matrix([ [-1.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1.0], [1.0, -1.0, -1.0, -2.0] ])
Sage: A.n(2)
[-1.0 -1.0 0.00 1.0]
[ 1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -2.0]
Roland
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
20 matches
Mail list logo
