Re: [sage-support] Re: Rendering of LaTeX in Sage Notebook

2013-01-29 Thread Jim Clark
On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > On 1/28/13 12:50 PM, Jim Clark wrote: >> On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jan Groenewald wrote: >> >>> Have you tried editing the html (there is a button for that)? >>> Often extra tags flood our students' cells and >>> it has to be cleared out for

[sage-support] Re: Rendering of LaTeX in Sage Notebook

2013-01-29 Thread Jason Grout
On 1/28/13 12:50 PM, Jim Clark wrote: On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jan Groenewald wrote: Have you tried editing the html (there is a button for that)? Often extra tags flood our students' cells and it has to be cleared out for the LaTeX to be interpreted. Thank you, Jan, that worked (I also

[sage-support] Re: Sage versus Excel (spreadsheets in general): Are my arguments correct and complete?

2013-01-29 Thread Jason Grout
On 1/29/13 4:18 PM, William Stein wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:23 PM, LFS wrote: Thanks for the reply! I used everything I found on this: http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/stats/basic_stats.html and I had looked at 9671 and said "Argh". That is just the result of a small undergra

Re: [sage-support] Re: Sage versus Excel (spreadsheets in general): Are my arguments correct and complete?

2013-01-29 Thread William Stein
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:23 PM, LFS wrote: > Thanks for the reply! I used everything I found on this: > http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/stats/basic_stats.html and I had > looked at 9671 and said "Argh". That is just the result of a small undergrad student project. There is *massively

[sage-support] Re: Sage versus Excel (spreadsheets in general): Are my arguments correct and complete?

2013-01-29 Thread LFS
Thanks for the reply! I used everything I found on this: http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/stats/basic_stats.html and I had looked at 9671 and said "Argh". > kcrisman wrote> On an unrelated note, I'll put in a plug for some > enterprising people to make more videos to put on LFS' sa

[sage-support] Re: Sage versus Excel (spreadsheets in general): Are my arguments correct and complete?

2013-01-29 Thread kcrisman
On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:11:06 PM UTC-5, LFS wrote: > > I have to admit that I did not find very much in sage for descriptive > statistics. > I have put what I found in my sagemath page: > http://sagemath.wikispaces.com/Statistics > If anyone can add anything to this, that would be great

[sage-support] Re: Sage versus Excel (spreadsheets in general): Are my arguments correct and complete?

2013-01-29 Thread LFS
I have to admit that I did not find very much in sage for descriptive statistics. I have put what I found in my sagemath page: http://sagemath.wikispaces.com/Statistics If anyone can add anything to this, that would be great. I really want sage - my goal is sage as a reasonably easy to use foss

[sage-support] Re: wrong answer from MixedIntegerLinearProgram(solver = "PPL")

2013-01-29 Thread Daniel Friedan
Thanks. Sorry for the dumb posting. Daniel On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:37:43 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On 2013-01-29, Daniel Friedan > wrote: > > --=_Part_964_12292304.1359472365223 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > The following example from Sage Refere

[sage-support] Re: wrong answer from MixedIntegerLinearProgram(solver = "PPL")

2013-01-29 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On 2013-01-29, Daniel Friedan wrote: > --=_Part_964_12292304.1359472365223 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > The following example from Sage Reference v5.6 >> Numerical Optimization >> > Mixed integer linear programming > http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/numer

[sage-support] wrong answer from MixedIntegerLinearProgram(solver = "PPL")

2013-01-29 Thread Daniel Friedan
The following example from Sage Reference v5.6 >> Numerical Optimization >> Mixed integer linear programming http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/numerical/mip.html gives a wrong answer when solver = 'PPL' is used. The equality constraints are violated. Sage 5.6-OSX-64bit-10.6 under