William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
> >
> > Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people
> > think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?
> That's a pretty wild and crazy idea. Cool. Does any other math
> software
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM, David Joyner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:20 PM, James Parson wrote:
>>
>>> > Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write
>>> > a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i
>>> > +j<=d. How should I do it?
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:20 PM, James Parson wrote:
>
>> > Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write
>> > a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i
>> > +j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,
>>
>> sage: Inds =
> > Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write
> > a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i
> > +j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,
>
> sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(5))
> sage: vars = ["a"+st
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:54 PM, James Parson wrote:
>
> Thanks to David Joyner for his response to my original question. His
> method worked nicely. Incidentally, here is the original Maple code
> from the lecture of Doron Zeilberger that I was trying to translate
> into Sage:
>
> with(combinat):
>
> > Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write
> > a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i
> > +j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,
>
> sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(5))
> sage: vars = ["a"+
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:54 PM, James Parson wrote:
>
> Thanks to David Joyner for his response to my original question. His
> method worked nicely. Incidentally, here is the original Maple code
> from the lecture of Doron Zeilberger that I was trying to translate
> into Sage:
BTW I think the m
Thanks to David Joyner for his response to my original question. His
method worked nicely. Incidentally, here is the original Maple code
from the lecture of Doron Zeilberger that I was trying to translate
into Sage:
with(combinat): P:=(d,x,y)->add(add(a[i,j]*x**i*y**j,i=0..d-
j),j=0..d);
V:=d->fs
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:38 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 12:16 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
>> What about having a "experiment mode" in Sage that turns on things like
>> this? Some variable in some module somewhere that people can set to
>> switch on some experimental behavior so they can
On Jun 3, 12:16 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> What about having a "experiment mode" in Sage that turns on things like
> this? Some variable in some module somewhere that people can set to
> switch on some experimental behavior so they can test it out and give
> feedback. In other words, setting sage
On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people
>>> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?
>>>
>>> sage: a = var('a')
>>>
Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Jun 3, 8:45 pm, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people
>> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?
>>
>> sage: a = var('a')
>> sage: a[0]
>> a_0
>> sage: latex(a[1,2])
>> a_{1,2}
>>
>
> I like it
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people
>> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?
>>
>> sage: a = var('a')
>> sage: a[0]
>> a_0
>> sage: latex(a[1,2])
>> a_{1,2}
>
> T
On Jun 3, 8:45 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people
> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?
>
> sage: a = var('a')
> sage: a[0]
> a_0
> sage: latex(a[1,2])
> a_{1,2}
>
I like it, this idea could also be expanded to v
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:53 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people
>> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?
>>
>> sage: a = var('a')
>> sage: a[0]
>> a_0
>> sage: latex(a[1,2])
>> a_{1,2}
>
> That's a pretty wild and craz
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people
> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?
>
> sage: a = var('a')
> sage: a[0]
> a_0
> sage: latex(a[1,2])
> a_{1,2}
That's a pretty wild and crazy idea.
Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people
think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?
sage: a = var('a')
sage: a[0]
a_0
sage: latex(a[1,2])
a_{1,2}
- Robert
On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:32 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if this helps, but you can cre
I'm not sure if this helps, but you can create a polynomial
of the type you want a bit simpler:
sage: var("x,y")
(x, y)
sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(4))
sage: sum([var("a"+str(i)+str(j))*x^i*y^j for i,j in Inds])
a43*x^4*y^3 + a33*x^3*y^3 + a42*x^4*y^2 + a23*x^2*y^3 + a32*x^3*y^2
18 matches
Mail list logo
