Hi Burcin,
Thank you very much for your reply. It partly solved my problem :)
Now I still have one more problem. For instance, referring to earlier
example, suppose now i want to differentiate a function of both
"theta" and "omega" w.r.t "omega". Now sage gives an error saying that
the it should b
The source code for Integer.sqrt() calls some lower level stuff that
I'm not familiar with, otherwise I'd try to fix it. Should I submit a
bug report? Can I even do that?
Thanks,
Richard
On May 27, 12:43 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On May 27, 2010, at 9:07 AM, rickhg12hs wrote:
>
> > I noticed
On 5/29/10 1:40 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Kiran,
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 4:27 AM, km wrote:
This happens only with d1 and d2. a1 or what ever works well.
d2 has special meaning in Maxima and the solve() command uses Maxima
for its backend. This is the same problem as reported at this [1]
Hi Kiran,
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 4:27 AM, km wrote:
> This happens only with d1 and d2. a1 or what ever works well.
d2 has special meaning in Maxima and the solve() command uses Maxima
for its backend. This is the same problem as reported at this [1]
sage-devel thread. That thread explains t
Hi all,
i've used d1,d2 as variables in symbolic equation. Solving this
equation returns some unexpected (at least for me) results. Simplest
case:
x,d1=var('x,d1'); solve(x^2-d1==0, x)
returns
[x == -sqrt(factorial(k + 2*n - 1)/factorial(2*k + 4*n)), x ==
sqrt(factorial(k + 2*n - 1)/factorial(2
Hi,
On Sat, 29 May 2010 08:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
isurug wrote:
> I was wondering if there is any support in sagemath to define new
> variables that are derivatives or integrals of existing variables. for
> instance, suppose that i define a variable called "theta" , is it now
> possible to define "om
Thank you very much!
That has worked!
Cheers,
Domingo
On 28 mayo, 23:01, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:36 AM, domingo.domingogo...@gmail.com
>
> wrote:
> > I have all the necessary packages and additionally libgpg-error and
> > libgpg-error-devel, could someone point
> > what
On May 29, 2:47 pm, VictorMiller wrote:
> John, Thanks for the explanation. It would have never occurred to me
> that polynomial rings would have gotten involved here.
If you look at the traceback message, you can see that what it was
doing when the error occurs is constructing a polynomial ri
Hi all,
I was wondering if there is any support in sagemath to define new
variables that are derivatives or integrals of existing variables. for
instance, suppose that i define a variable called "theta" , is it now
possible to define "omega" that is omega=thetal.derivative(t). This
problem occured
John, Thanks for the explanation. It would have never occurred to me
that polynomial rings would have gotten involved here.
Victor
On May 29, 7:24 am, John Cremona wrote:
> This is now being tracked athttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9085
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-
Alex, Thanks. I had discovered is_FreeModule after I posted my query,
but didn't know how to get rid of the deprecation warnings.
Victor
On May 29, 7:37 am, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 04:26:31 -0700 (PDT), John Cremona
> wrote:
> > Does the function is_FreeModule() do what you w
John Reid wrote:
Hi, I'm new to sage and am trying to work out how to use it to do some
calculus on various probability distributions I have. It seems to
integrate a beta distribution well but I can't get it to manage a
Dirichlet distribution. Am I missing something or is this beyond its scope?
On Sat, 29 May 2010 04:26:31 -0700 (PDT), John Cremona
wrote:
> Does the function is_FreeModule() do what you want by any chance?
And if it does and you don't want to see the deprecation warnings all
the time:
sage: from sage.modules.all import is_FreeModule
sage: is_FreeModule(x)
False
Best,
Does the function is_FreeModule() do what you want by any chance?
John
On May 28, 9:08 pm, VictorMiller wrote:
> I'm writing some code, and I'd like to test if a the value of a
> variable, say M, is an instance of an element of a FreeModule(F,n) for
> some F and n. If this weren't a parametrize
This is now being tracked at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9085
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co
Here is what is happening (certainly a bug). In the code which picks
a random element from F, F is treated as a sequence and then
subscripted with a random subscript. But (as you can verify)
evaluating F[0] or F[1] raises an error, since the __getitem__ method
of a field is used to create polynom
There are also 4 real intersection points satisfying
x^4 - 111/256*x^2 + 3/64=0
y^4 - 15/16*y^2 + 3/16=0
so it should be finding 9 real intersection points in total.
An algebraic description of these points can be obtained via:
K.=NumberField(x^8 - 11*x^6 + 24*x^4 - 11*x^2 + 1)
P.=K[]
xvals=(T^
> > I have not been able to get the following behaviour out of maxima
> > directly, but the following code illustrates that maxima's solve
> > forgets about some solutions:
>
> > def realzeros(f,g):
> > t = polygen(QQbar)
> > P = parent(f)
> > R = f.resultant(g,P.0)
> > yvals = [yva
On May 28, 2010, at 9:53 PM, Rolandb wrote:
Tnx Robert,
I rewrote the routine somewhat to use less stored values. Still I got
the following message:
error: no more memory
System -1596988k:2096917k Appl -1763860k/20285k Malloc 277k/0k Valloc
-1743852k/20285k Pages 612613/0 Regions 5045:5045
Wh
19 matches
Mail list logo
