Dear Jim,
On May 15, 4:03 am, jimfar wrote:
> Thanks, I was confusing myself with the definition of the order of an
> element with order of the cycle.
Are you really confusing it?
As much as I understood, you only want those elements that have a
single (!) cycle of length 3. Then, order() is t
Thanks to reply my message.
I understand it.
You're right. From now, I use explicit function likes right_nullity.
I learned right nullity convention, so rank + nullity = number of
columns.
I discuss about it with my Prof.
Thanks again.
Have a nice weekend.^^
--
NoSyu wrote:
> Ah... message is gone, so I write again. OTL...
>
>
>
>
> I solve the Linear Algebra course problems on Sage.
>
> Now I get the nullity of matrix to use nullity function, but it's
> weird.
>
>
> If I get the nullity of matrix A to use nullity function like that,
>
> A.nullit
Ah... message is gone, so I write again. OTL...
I solve the Linear Algebra course problems on Sage.
Now I get the nullity of matrix to use nullity function, but it's
weird.
If I get the nullity of matrix A to use nullity function like that,
A.nullity()
but the result of this is same as le
Thanks, I was confusing myself with the definition of the order of an
element with order of the cycle.
On May 14, 6:52 pm, David Joyner wrote:
> Why doesn't the obvious 1-liner
>
> [x for x in AlternatingGroup(5) if x.order()==3]
>
> work? Again, am I missing something?
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009
Why doesn't the obvious 1-liner
[x for x in AlternatingGroup(5) if x.order()==3]
work? Again, am I missing something?
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:57 PM, jimfar wrote:
>
> I can find the order of the element, but I am looking to generate a
> list of all of the 3 cycles in something like Alterna
I can find the order of the element, but I am looking to generate a
list of all of the 3 cycles in something like AlternatingGroup(5)
where the list will not go on for too long.
On May 14, 5:04 pm, David Joyner wrote:
> I must be missing something. Why can't you just check the order of the
> el
I must be missing something. Why can't you just check the order of the element?
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:53 PM, jimfar wrote:
>
> I can generate a list from any given group, but how would I go about
> generating a list of just 3 or 5 cycles?
>
> >
>
--~--~-~--~~~--
I can generate a list from any given group, but how would I go about
generating a list of just 3 or 5 cycles?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support-unsubs
On May 14, 2009, at 1:44 PM, RALPH THOMAS wrote:
> Do you mean this
>
> $login_page = file_get_contents("http://localhost:$notebook_server:
> $notebook_port/simple/login?username=admin&password=$password' )
> preg_match('.*"session": "([^"]*)"', $login_page, $matches)
> $session = $matches[1]
>
On May 14, 2009, at 12:25 PM, RALPH THOMAS wrote:
> What I would like to do is have page(form) come up in a browser
> that would let the user enter a lets say an equation then Sage
> would solve the equation and show the answer. Or an integral then
> Sage would calculate the value and displa
On May 14, 2009, at 9:27 AM, RALPH THOMAS wrote:
> Here is what I put into Sage
> ---
> sage: from sage.server.misc import find_next_available_port
> sage: port = find_next_available_port(, verbose=False)
> sage: from sage.server.noteboo
Hello folks,
most 3.4.2 binaries are up on sagemath.org and being mirrored out.
>From the usual suspects some are still missing, i.e.
* Fedora Core 10 32 bit
* Atom
* RHEL 5.2/SLES 10 Itanium
* OSX 10.4 Intel
Most of the missing binaries will show up in the next 24 hours. We
also have some
I like Jason's idea (specifically real_nth_root) as a method.
However, to me the real issue is plotting. If someone tries to get a
cube root of -1 and gets a complex number, at least they see there is
an output! And then someone can help them understand why they get
that answer.
But there is a
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>> Bill Page wrote:
>> Ok thanks. I recall the discussion and I can indeed write:
>>
>> sage: f=lambda x:RR(x).nth_root(3)
>> sage: f(-2.0)
>> -1.25992104989487
>>
>> but I think I'll let my earlier comment stand:
>>
I think there should be
Bill Page wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>> Bill Page wrote:
>>> Consider the problem to define
>>>
>>> f(x) = x^(1/3)
>>>
>>> so that it takes the real branch for x < 0. The best I have been able
>>> to come up with so far is:
>>>
>>> sage: f = lambda x:
>>> Rea
On May 14, 1:57 am, Josephine Ame wrote:
> > What am I doing wrong?
> z=(g+u)^2 + j^2*w^2
> -c_0*exp(-g*L)*(cos(j*w*L)*(g+u)-j*w*sin(j*w*L))/c_0*exp(-g*L)*(cos(j*w*L)*
> (g+u)-j*w*sin(j*w*L))
Exponentials written as exp(foo) ... OK.
> Z = 1/P - 1 - (e^2/4)/z
Written as e^foo ... OK.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> Consider the problem to define
>>
>> f(x) = x^(1/3)
>>
>> so that it takes the real branch for x < 0. The best I have been able
>> to come up with so far is:
>>
>> sage: f = lambda x: RealField(53)(x).sign()*(RealFi
Bill Page wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:59 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>> This debate has been going on for as long as computers have been in
>> existence. Yes, there is a case to be made the odd roots of negative
>> reals should return a negative real instead of the "principal" complex
>> root.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:59 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> This debate has been going on for as long as computers have been in
> existence. Yes, there is a case to be made the odd roots of negative
> reals should return a negative real instead of the "principal" complex
> root. But that leads to m
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On May 13, 2009, at 9:11 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> This is because the branch in which the positive real root is real is
>>> taken. We're opting for continuity and consiste
> On May 14, 12:57 pm, Laurent wrote:
>
>> Btw, the function simplify_full does not exist ... so I suppose that I
>> *do* miss something.
>>
>
> Yes. simplify_full is not a function but a method (after all, python
> is object oriented).
>
Thanks all.
Indeed, simplify_all(s) provokes
On May 14, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Laurent wrote:
>
> Hello
>
>
>
> x,y=var('x,y')
> s = x*y2 + x*(-y2 - x2 + 1) + x3 - x
> print simplify(s)
>
> Answer :
>
>2 22 3
> x y + x (- y - x + 1) + x -
Dear Laurent,
On May 14, 12:57 pm, Laurent wrote:
> Btw, the function simplify_full does not exist ... so I suppose that I
> *do* miss something.
Yes. simplify_full is not a function but a method (after all, python
is object oriented).
So, you can do:
sage: x,y=var('x,y')
sage: s = x*y^2 + x*(
On May 14, 3:57 am, Laurent wrote:
> Hello
Hi Laurent,
>
>
> x,y=var('x,y')
> s = x*y2 + x*(-y2 - x2 + 1) + x3 - x
> print simplify(s)
>
> Answer :
>
> 2 2 2 3
> x y + x (- y - x + 1) + x
Hello
x,y=var('x,y')
s = x*y2 + x*(-y2 - x2 + 1) + x3 - x
print simplify(s)
Answer :
2 22 3
x y + x (- y - x + 1) + x - x
+
I'm quite disappointed that Sa
On May 14, 10:43 am, Alberto wrote:
> 2.5.1 for sure that work. I has using 2.5.2 (that works fine with sage
> 3.2.2) but it seems to keep sage 3.4.1 in a continuous loop when
> entering "notebook" option.
Interesting. I'll lok out for that when I get that far!
>
> Have you check if during in
2.5.1 for sure that work. I has using 2.5.2 (that works fine with sage
3.2.2) but it seems to keep sage 3.4.1 in a continuous loop when
entering "notebook" option.
Have you check if during instalation the authorizations to wmware
networks adapters in the windows firewall?
On May 13, 9:18 pm, kil
This debate has been going on for as long as computers have been in
existence. Yes, there is a case to be made the odd roots of negative
reals should return a negative real instead of the "principal" complex
root. But that leads to more subtle problems in other places. If all
of mathematica, ma
Hi,
I tried solving a non-linear system to be able to get a plot of g against L as
defined in the code below, I have used the solve command but failed and now I
tried the find_root command, the below is the code and the first five result
for E=0, but the other results are functions of L and
30 matches
Mail list logo
