e which is not compatible with
symbolic expressions. Although you can evaluate f(5,6) you cannot do
f(mp.convert(5),mp.convert(6))
as Sage cannot do
x-mp.convert(5)
HTH
Alastair Irving
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
ther than Sage integers.
Therefore, the / operator does integer part tivision, that is p[1]/p[0]
is evaluating to 0, hence the comparison is correct.
Alastair Irving
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
To post to this group, sen
On 12/09/2012 15:14, P Purkayastha wrote:
Can anyone point out what is wrong with this comparison:
sage: 0.2 + 0.1 == 0.3
False
It seems baffling that something as simple as this returns False.
Its a fairly common problem with doing arithmetic with floatingpoint
numbers as they are only sto
. For example, if I use a Polyhedron object to store
the region of interest is there any way of getting functions from it
which describe the limits of integration? Ideally, if P is a Polyhedron
it would be nice to have something like P.integral(f) which computes the
integral of f over P.
M
On 25/04/2012 16:45, Graham Gerrard wrote:
Finding occasional inconsistencies when using matrices with cyclotomic
entries, though works well most of the time...
sage: s=CyclotomicField(24,'s').gen()
sage: (8*s^6-1)^10
-1098715216*s^6 - 372960063
sage: xb=matrix(1,1,[8*s^6-1])
sage: xb^10
[103692
On 09/04/2012 21:02, Kent Morrison wrote:
In this snippet of Sage code I believe that pos is [1,2,3]. But mod(1,p)
in pos evaluates to False, while mod(1,p) in [1,2,3] evaluates to True.
However 1%p in pos and 1%p in [1,2,3] both evaluate to True.
This behaviour can be understood by using the ty
s very useful.
Graham
On Feb 29, 10:35 pm, Alastair Irving
wrote:
On 29/02/2012 19:54, firebird wrote:> I am having performance problems when
using SAGE matrices with
Cyclotomic Fields. Processing in GAP appears almost instant, whereas
the similar computation takes of the order of a minu
On 29/02/2012 19:54, firebird wrote:
I am having performance problems when using SAGE matrices with
Cyclotomic Fields. Processing in GAP appears almost instant, whereas
the similar computation takes of the order of a minute in SAGE. Am I
missing something?
Sage:
F.=CyclotomicField(29)
m=[]
n=2
Hi
If you're using a Sage Notebook on a server then Image Magik needs to be
installed on that server, not on your local Windows machine.
HTH
Alastair
On 12/01/2012 14:36, LFS wrote:
Sorry Dan - I know how to click on "download" and then double-click on
a "setup.exe" file. I am math, not pr
On 08/11/2011 16:52, Chappman wrote:
Hi folks,
When I try and do to two arguments in the same lines in sagemath it
does not compute, this is what I have written:
if A==1 and D==1 then case<- 1 else
if A==2 and D==1 then case<- 2
Hi
This is not the correct syntax for an if statement in
On 30/08/11 14:59, MathLynx wrote:
(1) How does one define a field of rational functions in several
variables? QQ[x,y] gives me the ring of polynomials in x& y over QQ,
but 2*x/y is not in this ring.
R.=PolynomialRing(QQ)
K=R.fraction_field()
HTH
Alastair
--
To post to this group, send em
On 19/08/2011 18:57, Sucharit wrote:
I am using Sage to compute homologies of large chain complexes. For
this, I need to compute kernels of matrices over GF(2).
The attached file testmatrix.sage contains the 128 X 120 matrix that I
started with. The first command loads the file. The second comma
On 28/07/2011 22:34, VictorMiller wrote:
I want to do a lot of finite field computations, and want to use
Cython to speed things up. It's not clear to me what the details are
that I need to adhere to. I noticed from the comments in
element_givaro.pyx that the givaro library is fastest from fiel
On 14/06/2011 21:58, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
On 14 juin, 08:44, Simon King wrote:
Since sage-nt seems to agree that it is a bug, I opened trac ticket
#11474.
Good !
About the original memleak, I tried looking at how
EllipticCurves_finite_field (maybe not correct name) are created but
could
Hi
I've got a .sage file that I want to compile using Cython. If I just
copy it to a .spyx file and do load "myfile.spyx" then the sage
preparser is not called on the file. What's the simplest way of calling
the preparser before compiling?
Many thanks
Alastair Irving
On 27/03/2011 02:32, Marshall Hampton wrote:
If p is your Polyhedron, you can use p.lrs_volume() to get the volume,
but this requires the optional lrs package to be installed. It should
be very easy to install lrs, just do "sage -i lrs" (or "path/to/sage/
sage -i lrs" if sage is not in your path
Hi
I've created a polyhedron with the Polyhedron function. Is there any
way I can find its volume?What about its surface area?
Many thanks
Alastair
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr.
On 26/03/2011 08:52, clodemil wrote:
Alastair,
Thanks a lot.
the Pytonic way:
def Ppulse(mesures):
return [N((l[0]-l[1]),12) for l in mesures]
works(I shall need to understand/study why!!)
Its a list comprehension.
The other solution:
def Ppulse(mesures):
result=[]
for k,l in
On 25/03/2011 13:15, clodemil wrote:
Hi all,
Here is a list:
mesures=[[172,91,57],[181,88,58],[146,88,56],[191,85,59],[171,92,50],
[157,93,55],[180,84,48],[142,77,60],[169,80,45],[162,76,59],
[167,104,73],[166,81,53],[145,78,59],[163,98,58],[192,90,50],
[184,85,60],[151,77,56]]
# [[P systolic,P
On 21/03/2011 16:24, kcrisman wrote:
This is important to fix, because some Sage code depends on the input
in integer form being Sage integer or something else with Sage
methods, not a Python int, and one could imagine someone relying on
this and getting a nasty exception.
exactly what happened
HI All
I'm running Sage 4.6.2. I've just noticed that if I evaluate various
symbolic expressions which return 0 then the 0 returned is a python int,
rather than a Sage integer. examples of such expressions are sin(0),
tan(0), ln(0).
Is there a reason for this or is it a bug?
Best wishes
On 28/02/2011 13:19, D. S. McNeil wrote:
I was wondering if sage implements any algorithm for counting the number of
points with integer coordinates inside polyhedra with rational coordinates.
even such an algorithm for polygons would be useful for me.
Have a look at the integral_points metho
Hi All
I was wondering if sage implements any algorithm for counting the number
of points with integer coordinates inside polyhedra with rational
coordinates. even such an algorithm for polygons would be useful for me.
Best wishes
Alastair
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-suppo
On 13/09/2010 17:31, Håkan Granath wrote:
In certain cases I get nothing from the continued_fraction function
in the latest Sage version:
--
| Sage Version 4.5.3, Release Date: 2010-09-04 |
| Type notebook(
On 13/09/2010 20:01, Nick wrote:
Hello!
I have a computation running in Sage. It is a search of more or less
the following form:
Let S be an empty set.
For i in some interval:
Check some property for i
If i satisfies the property:
add i to the set S.
I now realise I should have said "print i"
ective function to be differentiable
everywhere, which the l1 norm isn't.
Are there any packages that provide the functionality I'm looking for?
If not can my current method be improved upon?
Many thanks
Alastair Irving
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroup
find much documentation for it so don't really know what I'm doing. In
particular how can I construct all the groups of a given order using the
database?
Many thanks
Alastair Irving
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group,
27 matches
Mail list logo
