http://ask.sagemath.org/question/335/multiple-3d-plots-in-one-panel-graphics_array-and
On 17 Kwi, 02:46, ObsessiveMathsFreak
wrote:
> Currently in sage 3D I can graph 3D plots in the same output, but not
> side by side.
>
> p1=plot3d(lambda x, y: x^2 + y^2, (-2,2), (-2,2))
> p2=plot3d(lambda x, y
Thanks for your replies! They helped.
However, I had a major disappointment. I wrote a short script, and it
is apparently too much for sage/python to handle when I am running a
virtual machine from Win 7. I use process monitor and it goes like
this: when I run my script, both the CPU and RAM usage
On 4/16/11 7:46 PM, kcrisman wrote:
By the way, I think that the histogram stuff in Sage is wrapped a
*little* better than that you'd have to make up your own way of doing
it? Or maybe it isn't yet :(
See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9671 for a rough patch
wrapping the matplotli
Currently in sage 3D I can graph 3D plots in the same output, but not
side by side.
p1=plot3d(lambda x, y: x^2 + y^2, (-2,2), (-2,2))
p2=plot3d(lambda x, y: x^2 - y^2, (-2,2), (-2,2))
(p1).show(viewer="tachyon")
(p2).show(viewer="tachyon")
With 2d plots, this can be done using graphics array, but
On Apr 16, 4:12 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:44 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> > On Monday or Wed., I think I'd like to show my intro number theory
> > course a cool new result we would have no hope of actually examining,
> > but whose result they can understand - the Barnet-Lamb
On Apr 16, 12:49 am, "D. S. McNeil" wrote:
> > I'm not turning off warnings in numpy, though, since we use it under the
> > hood only
> > here.
>
> I'm confused. I was going to recommend numpy.seterr(all='ignore')
> before I read this, maybe wrapping plot to restore the original state
> after
There are two confusing things about the code posted. In the first
line, x is defined to be an element of k=GF(101^5) which generates
that field over the prime field. In the next line, x is redefined to
be the generator of a polynomial ring over that field. The first
meaning of x is not used in
On Apr 16, 4:33 am, kcrisman wrote:
> In this case, you can reinstall the sagenb spkg, I think. Let us know
> if that works. The Jmol upgrade is still experimental, though
> definitely wending its way toward completion...
>
> On Apr 15, 9:51 pm, ObsessiveMathsFreak
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Ho
On Apr 16, 9:52 pm, nkulmati wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I have a simple script:
>
> > G = graphs.RandomNGP(20, 0.05)
> > centralities = G.centrality_closeness()
>
> I can not figure out how to plot the graph G so that no only the
> labels (1,2,3) are shown but also the corresponding centralities fro
great -- thanks !
--
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.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Hello All,
I have a simple script:
> G = graphs.RandomNGP(20, 0.05)
> centralities = G.centrality_closeness()
I can not figure out how to plot the graph G so that no only the
labels (1,2,3) are shown but also the corresponding centralities from
the dictionary "centralities"!
Does anyone have an
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:44 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> On Monday or Wed., I think I'd like to show my intro number theory
> course a cool new result we would have no hope of actually examining,
> but whose result they can understand - the Barnet-Lamb/Geraghty/Harris/
> Taylor result on number of ways
In the last post one can replace 0.99 by 1
but I wanted to exclude the following situation:
sage: n=var('n')
sage: x=var('x')
sage: x=(1/2)^(1/(n+1))
sage: limit(x^(n+1)/(1-x),n=+oo)
+Infinity # OK
On 16 Kwi, 15:36, achrzesz wrote:
> I must correct myself
> W... alpha:
> Assuming[x>-0.99,Assumin
I must correct myself
W... alpha:
Assuming[x>-0.99,Assuming[x<0.99,Limit[x^(n+1)/(1-x),n->+Infinity]]
gives correct answer 0
On 16 Kwi, 09:27, achrzesz wrote:
> In W... alpha
> Assuming[x>-0.99,x<0.99];Limit[x^(n+1)/(1-x),n->+Infinity]
> remains unevaluated, so Maxima, Sage are nol alone
>
> On 1
sage: R.=PolynomialRing(QQ,'x,y,z')
sage: w=3/5*x*y+5*y+3*z
sage: w.monomials()
[x*y, y, z]
sage: w1=3*x^2
sage: w1.monomials()
[x^2]
On 16 Kwi, 07:00, tvn wrote:
> given an expression f of the form c1*t1 + c2*t2 + .. +cn*tn, I want to
> extract from f the list of 'terms' [t1..tn] .. is there
In W... alpha
Assuming[x>-0.99,x<0.99];Limit[x^(n+1)/(1-x),n->+Infinity]
remains unevaluated, so Maxima, Sage are nol alone
On 16 Kwi, 08:18, achrzesz wrote:
> One can discuss if in limits of f(x,n) as n-->oo
> x may depend on n or not but in the following version:
>
> sage: assume(x>-0.99,x<0.99
16 matches
Mail list logo
