On 2015-12-10 03:25, Nils Bruin wrote:
Looks like standard python scoping rules to me
Right. However, I must agree with Vincent that those rules can be confusing.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 6:19:54 PM UTC-8, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Apparently, I need to define avma as
>
> global avma
>
> (with that everything works fine). It is not clear to me why...
>
Looks like standard python scoping rules to me: if a variable is assigned
to in a function b
Apparently, I need to define avma as
global avma
(with that everything works fine). It is not clear to me why...
On 09/12/15 22:59, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
Hello,
I tried to use PARI inside some Cython code in Sage. Apparently, it is
not happy with the declaration of avma from paridecl (
Hello,
I tried to use PARI inside some Cython code in Sage. Apparently, it is
not happy with the declaration of avma from paridecl (which is as
declared as "extern pari_sp avma").
The following compiles (with %runfile the_file.pyx)
{{{
from sage.libs.pari.paridecl cimport *
def test
2015-12-05 21:03:04 UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier:
>
> Plot2d() gracefully handles plotting a fnction undefined (in real terms)
> on part of the plotting domain. For example :
> plot(sqrt(x^2-1),(x,-3/2,3.2))
> displays two half-axes of hyperbole, and waons that some points have been
> lost.
>
>
Dears members,
I have two question about the package sage.logic.booleval of SAGE.
1.-In the documentation of that package I have found a similar formula of
this "t = ['&', ['|', 'a', 'b'], ['|', 'a', 'c']]". My question is it is
posible to write three literals in each clause?
2.-In that documentat
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Paul Leopardi wrote:
> I also could not reproduce the problem with the worksheet you gave me. I
> have reproduced it with the following worksheet
> https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/80f4c9e7-8a37-4f59-82e7-aa179ec0b652/files/public/new-order.sagews
> which leads m
On 09.12.2015 14:08, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2015-12-09 12:22, Johannes wrote:
Some more Information about the general setting:
I play around with actions of finite groups on a polynomial ring acting
by multiplication with a power of the n-th root of unity.
Interesting. But then, why do you c
On 2015-12-09 12:22, Johannes wrote:
Some more Information about the general setting:
I play around with actions of finite groups on a polynomial ring acting
by multiplication with a power of the n-th root of unity.
Interesting. But then, why do you care so much about the condition
exp(2 * pi *
On 08.12.2015 23:18, Nils Bruin wrote:
[..]
yea, you are right. i was not precise enough. So this should be the
better formulated properties:
* (xi_n in QQbar) == true
* xi.parent() == QQbar
* (exp(2 * pi * I / n) == xi_n)
sage: cyclotomic_polynomial(5).roots(QQbar)
[(-0.8090169943749474? -
I also could not reproduce the problem with the worksheet you gave me. I
have reproduced it with the following worksheet
https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/80f4c9e7-8a37-4f59-82e7-aa179ec0b652/files/public/new-order.sagews
which leads me to believe that it is caused by a 'corrupted' worksheet. My
11 matches
Mail list logo
