[sage-support] Re: Lambda functions vs. defining functions

2016-08-11 Thread Dima Pasechnik
In addition to what others have written in this thread, there is yet another potential confusion, stemming from such data types as elements of polynomial rings. E.g. sage: R.=QQ[] sage: f=2*x*y-5 sage: type(f) shows that f here is neither a python function nor a symbolic expression. Although

Re: [sage-support] Re: Lambda functions vs. defining functions

2016-08-11 Thread Harald Schilly
I think you got it, but I'm just adding this below in case someone else is also interested: Here, this sequence defines a symbolic x, and that function f, and then checks the types x = var('x') f=lambda x: x*sin(x) type(f) type(f(x)) and f(x) is still a symbolic expression. Now we change x to b

[sage-support] Re: Lambda functions vs. defining functions

2016-08-11 Thread leif
William Stein wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016, Todd Zimmerman > mailto:todd.zimmerman@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I assumed that SageMath converts the functions into symbolic > expressions. > If I enter the following it will work: > > > f=lambda x: x*sin(x) > diff(f(x),

[sage-support] Re: Installing the optional python3 package seems to break Sage

2016-08-11 Thread leif
Jori Mäntysalo wrote: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, William Stein wrote: > >> I was really surprised when I started Sage that people would often try >> to **install all optional packages**, then report anything that went >> wrong.I bet people still try to do this... Well, it's good if people test th