On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 8:54 PM, wrote:
>
> Hi
> I got sage installed (compiled from source).
>
> However, when I check the Typeset checkbox in the sage notebook I get
> the following error
> "It looks like jsMath failed to set up properly (error code 7)".
>
> Due to this the display is not very
Hi
I got sage installed (compiled from source).
However, when I check the Typeset checkbox in the sage notebook I get
the following error
"It looks like jsMath failed to set up properly (error code 7)".
Due to this the display is not very good.
I would be deeply thankful for some help in this
Sorry to reply so late.
Hmmm... I upgraded that computer to Mac OS 10.5. I'll be putting SAGE
back on it and if I have the same problem again I'll be sure to let
you guys know. It sounds like I did something wrong in the original
install. Thanks for your help though!
Happy New Year
On Dec 9, 10:
On Dec 29, 2008, at 4:47 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to (deprecating then removing) removing X.list(), and replacing it
>> with X.entries().
>
> Very good point. We *must* remember to make X.list() use the
> deprecation warning
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> +1 to (deprecating then removing) removing X.list(), and replacing it
> with X.entries().
Very good point. We *must* remember to make X.list() use the
deprecation warning system, and only remove it after 6 months. Could
you make a tra
On Dec 29, 2008, at 4:15 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Justin Walker wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 29, 2008, at 5:23 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I missed the point here but after
>>
>> The point was a minor one...
>>
>>> R.=QQ[]
>>> M=matrix(R,1,2,[x1+x2,x1*x2])
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:16 PM, ggrafendorfer
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> this is somehow related to this thread:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/151415480ecebc1a
>
> Assume that 'a' is a *negative* real number with some precision not
> equal to 53 bit and I want to coe
Hi,
this is somehow related to this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/151415480ecebc1a
Assume that 'a' is a *negative* real number with some precision not
equal to 53 bit and I want to coerce it to a complex number preserving
its precision (for example to t
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Justin Walker wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 29, 2008, at 5:23 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe I missed the point here but after
>
> The point was a minor one...
>
>> R.=QQ[]
>> M=matrix(R,1,2,[x1+x2,x1*x2])
>>
>> you can get at the entries like this:
>> sage: M[0,0]
>
Hi: Is there a way to plot a joint probability density function in
Sage? I looked at
3D plots in the Sage reference manual (http://www.sagemath.org/doc/ref/
node29.html)
but could not find anything close.
For example, here is a simple joint probability density function:
{ 2 : x
Hi All,
thanks for all the answers, especially for John Cremona for being the
only one recognizing what I actually wanted to point out :-)
It's probably my fault, I'll take away obscuring examples the next
time and try to focus on the issue
For better understanding why I did "CC(-5).n(prec=100)"
On Dec 29, 2008, at 5:23 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Maybe I missed the point here but after
The point was a minor one...
> R.=QQ[]
> M=matrix(R,1,2,[x1+x2,x1*x2])
>
> you can get at the entries like this:
> sage: M[0,0]
> x1 + x2
> sage: M[0,1]
> x1*x2
For the OP, it was surprising that "lis
Maybe I missed the point here but after
R.=QQ[]
M=matrix(R,1,2,[x1+x2,x1*x2])
you can get at the entries like this:
sage: M[0,0]
x1 + x2
sage: M[0,1]
x1*x2
where the only non-obvious thing to a mathematician is that the
row/col indices start at at 0.
The list() discussion seems separate to me.
On Dec 29, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Dec 29, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Justin Walker wrote:
>
>> On Dec 29, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Santanu Sarkar wrote:
>>
>>> I write a program in SAGE as follows:
>>> R.=QQ[]
>>> M=matrix(R,1,2,[x1+x2,x1*x2])
>>> may i do following steps to extract poly
On Dec 29, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Justin Walker wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Santanu Sarkar wrote:
>
>> I write a program in SAGE as follows:
>> R.=QQ[]
>> M=matrix(R,1,2,[x1+x2,x1*x2])
>> may i do following steps to extract polynomials from matrix?
>> 1) x = list(M)
>> 2) f1 = x[0]
>> 3) f2
On Dec 29, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Santanu Sarkar wrote:
> I write a program in SAGE as follows:
> R.=QQ[]
> M=matrix(R,1,2,[x1+x2,x1*x2])
> may i do following steps to extract polynomials from matrix?
> 1) x = list(M)
> 2) f1 = x[0]
> 3) f2 = x[1]
> is f1 & f2 are polynomials?
> if not how i can get
I write a program in SAGE as follows:
R.=QQ[]
M=matrix(R,1,2,[x1+x2,x1*x2])
may i do following steps to extract polynomials from matrix?
1) x = list(M)
2) f1 = x[0]
3) f2 = x[1]
is f1 & f2 are polynomials?
if not how i can get them? please help me!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~-
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 9:48 AM, mabshoff
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 29, 9:40 am, "John Cremona" wrote:
>> There really are two different issues here. The one which William and
>> Michael concentrate on is that adding .n(100) to a 53-bit complex
>> number does not increase its precision in any meani
On Dec 29, 9:40 am, "John Cremona" wrote:
> There really are two different issues here. The one which William and
> Michael concentrate on is that adding .n(100) to a 53-bit complex
> number does not increase its precision in any meaningful sense, it
> just pads with 47 bits of 0.
>
> But the
2008/12/29 John Cremona :
> There really are two different issues here. The one which William and
> Michael concentrate on is that adding .n(100) to a 53-bit complex
> number does not increase its precision in any meaningful sense, it
> just pads with 47 bits of 0.
>
> But the second point is to
There really are two different issues here. The one which William and
Michael concentrate on is that adding .n(100) to a 53-bit complex
number does not increase its precision in any meaningful sense, it
just pads with 47 bits of 0.
But the second point is to do with Georg's original observation
>
> > Dear William,
> > With "ln(CC(-5).n(prec=100))" I'm not taking the log of a number with
> > 53-bit precision hoping that it magically turns into a 100-bit
> > precision number, what you mean would be "ln(CC(-5)).n(prec=100)",
> > I'm taking the log of CC(-5).n(prec=100) which obviously should
On Dec 29, 8:55 am, ggrafendorfer
wrote:
Hi Georg,
> > You should do it the right way instead of the wrong way. It is a very
> > bad idea to do stuff like "ln(CC(-5).n(prec=100))", which basically
> > says "take -5, think of it as a complex number with 53 bits of
> > precision, take the log,
> You should do it the right way instead of the wrong way. It is a very
> bad idea to do stuff like "ln(CC(-5).n(prec=100))", which basically
> says "take -5, think of it as a complex number with 53 bits of
> precision, take the log, then view the answer as magically having 100
> bits of precisi
On 28 Dez., 23:14, "William Stein" wrote:
> Is this the sort of thing you want?
>
> sage: n = 123.45
> sage: n
> 123.4500
> sage: len(str(n).rstrip('0')) - 1
> 5
>
Thank you. That's exactly what I need.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send em
25 matches
Mail list logo
