On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM, jtyard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if this counts as a bug, so sorry if I'm posting this to
> the wrong list. Say I define a cyclotomic field in Sage as follows:
>
> sage: Q3 = CyclotomicField(3)
> sage: z3 = Q3.0
>
> Then Sage can compute the complex conjugate
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
>> Sage will soon have a similar mode so that undefined vars magically
>> spring into existence *and* you can call methods using functional
>> notation, which is what that thread lin
Hi,
I don't know if this counts as a bug, so sorry if I'm posting this to
the wrong list. Say I define a cyclotomic field in Sage as follows:
sage: Q3 = CyclotomicField(3)
sage: z3 = Q3.0
Then Sage can compute the complex conjugate independent of an
embedding into the complexes:
sage: z3.conju
Hi, I was hoping to post this question to to the sage-support group
directly, but my membership has not yet been approved.
I am having trouble implementing complex conjugation in a relative
extension of a cyclotomic field. I create my field in Sage as
follows:
sage: Q3 = CyclotomicField(3)
sage:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
>> Sage will soon have a similar mode so that undefined vars magically
>> spring into existence *and* you can call methods using functional
>> notation, which is what that thread lin
On 12 ene, 21:34, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Oscar Gerardo Lazo Arjona
>
> wrote:
> > wouldn't it be a good idea to hard-code certain mathematical expressions
> > into sage
> > like pi, I , and e as sage additional keywords so that they could not be
> > variable nam
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Sage will soon have a similar mode so that undefined vars magically
> spring into existence *and* you can call methods using functional
> notation, which is what that thread linked to above is about.
See ticket #7482 [1], which has been m
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Oscar Gerardo Lazo Arjona
wrote:
> wouldn't it be a good idea to hard-code certain mathematical expressions
> into sage
> like pi, I , and e as sage additional keywords so that they could not be
> variable names?
Yes.
> I had a hard time figuring out what was hap
wouldn't it be a good idea to hard-code certain mathematical expressions
into sage
like pi, I , and e as sage additional keywords so that they could not be
variable names?
I had a hard time figuring out what was happening when my e^x expression
didn't work
because i had made e into a string w
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:12 PM, tom wrote:
> Hi Kwankyu,
>
> Do you or anyone know of a recipe to configure a linux apache
> httpd.conf file so that sage will run as a web server for the public?
> We are looking to make something like the www.sagenb.org except for
> our local group.
>
Here is w
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:48 AM, eliot brenner wrote:
> I have a matrix "testmatrix" which lies in the following SAGE class:
>
> Full MatrixSpace of 12 by 12 dense matrices over Real Field with 500
> bits of precision
>
> I would like to find the eigenvectors of this matrix using for example
> PA
Hi Kwankyu,
Do you or anyone know of a recipe to configure a linux apache
httpd.conf file so that sage will run as a web server for the public?
We are looking to make something like the www.sagenb.org except for
our local group.
Thanks for your time,
Tom
On Jan 10, 9:24 pm, Kwankyu wrote:
> Hi,
I have a matrix "testmatrix" which lies in the following SAGE class:
Full MatrixSpace of 12 by 12 dense matrices over Real Field with 500
bits of precision
I would like to find the eigenvectors of this matrix using for example
PARI, with the command mateigen.
There is documentation in the SAGE
13 matches
Mail list logo
