On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Robert
Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>
>> I totally agree, but unfortunately it seems there are not so many
>> people involved in the development of SAGE, focused on these topics.
>
> This was true of many things that are now in S
On Jun 24, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Maurizio wrote:
> I totally agree, but unfortunately it seems there are not so many
> people involved in the development of SAGE, focused on these topics.
This was true of many things that are now in Sage when they started
out. Rather than existing Sage developers
I totally agree, but unfortunately it seems there are not so many
people involved in the development of SAGE, focused on these topics.
Thank you for your comment
Regards
Maurizio
On Jun 24, 9:26 am, petrush wrote:
> I would just like to comment about the interest in units, that I think
> unit
I would just like to comment about the interest in units, that I think
unit support for SAGE would be highly appreciated for a large audience
dealing with all kind of engineering/physics/etc calculations. It is
not sure that this group is following the development in SAGE today,
since it's known m
On 17 Giu, 09:24, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> Thanks for the wiki and summary. In my (brief) perusal of the
> options, Unum sounds like the best fit to me too.
>
I am glad I can give something to this community, I hope this has been
valuable to somebody.
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 3:27 AM, William St
Thanks for the wiki and summary. In my (brief) perusal of the
options, Unum sounds like the best fit to me too.
On Jun 15, 2009, at 3:27 AM, William Stein wrote:
> There is also the fact that Sage has rings, elements, parents, a
> coercion model, etc. which might throw a monkey wrench into eve
Very interesting...
so how would be the best way to do this with symbolics in SAGE? I
think the recent switch to pynac requires the community some time to
learn how to use it.
Nonetheless, I sent an email to the author of Unum, so he could at
least point out some suggestions, if not directly hel
On Jun 15, 4:24 am, Maurizio wrote:
> precisely, basic units (as meter, second, etc) are, by definition,
> terminal unums (without references); derived units (as Newton, Joule,
> etc) have a dictionary with, as keys, unums representing basic/derived
> units, and, as values, their exponents; fina
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> I am wondering whether somebody contacted the author.
>
> Let me cite him (everything is better explained in the wiki):
>
> - I have another idea for further development, which is more
> technical. It is to remove the unit dictionary stored as
I am wondering whether somebody contacted the author.
Let me cite him (everything is better explained in the wiki):
- I have another idea for further development, which is more
technical. It is to remove the unit dictionary stored as Unum's class
attributes (which is the cornerstone of the curre
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM, David Joyner wrote:
> +1 > I like the "as" method
> http://home.scarlet.be/be052320/Unum_tutorial.html#_Toc68111424
"as" is going to be a keyword in Python 2.6 so this will actually have
to be changed. It makes sense to do it before it's in Sage since it
will bre
I added some comments to the wiki about Quantities as well.
>From the point of view of the code, I can give my impression, but I'm
not experienced in programming.
Unum looks simple and understandable.
Quantities looks more complex, and even finding the right way to look
at is difficult for me. An
> "as" is going to be a keyword in Python 2.6 so this will actually have
> to be changed. It makes sense to do it before it's in Sage since it
> will break code.
>
Yes, indeed that's even coming out when executing its own test suite:
Python is warning that as is a keyword in 2.6.
> > Note that
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>>
...
>> Anyway, I updated the wiki page since I successfully installed Unum in
>> SAGE. You can see the (pretty encouraging) results there:
>>
>> http://wiki.sagemath.org/Unit%20of%20Meas
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> William, David, thanks for your help.
> I am really surprised by how dumb should I have been yesterday. Today
> everything looks easy :)
>
> Anyway, I updated the wiki page since I successfully installed Unum in
> SAGE. You can see the (pretty e
William, David, thanks for your help.
I am really surprised by how dumb should I have been yesterday. Today
everything looks easy :)
Anyway, I updated the wiki page since I successfully installed Unum in
SAGE. You can see the (pretty encouraging) results there:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/Unit%20of
Maurizio:
I'm not sure when you created http://wiki.sagemath.org/Unit%20of%20Measurement
but a "secret question" has been added to the wiki which you have to
answer for each
edit. The answer to the question is (hopefully) pretty obvious. I
think the question
appears near the top of the page after
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> Well, actually SEP was containing a list of links to wiki pages of
> proposals.
>
> I'm sorry but I have been misunderstood: I meant to say that in SEP
> (Sage Enhancement Proposal) there was the link to the wiki page I
> created: Units of Meas
Well, actually SEP was containing a list of links to wiki pages of
proposals.
I'm sorry but I have been misunderstood: I meant to say that in SEP
(Sage Enhancement Proposal) there was the link to the wiki page I
created: Units of Measurement.
In fact, I didn't mean to substitute that SEP page, bu
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Maurizio wrote:
> I created the wiki page for this in SEP:
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/SEP
>
> Unfortunately, it seems I don't have the rights to modify the page I
> created.
I've never heard of that in 3 years of running that wiki. I don't
know how you setup th
On Jun 12, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Maurizio wrote:
> Hi
>
>> I'm going to suggest that interested parties just write a new
>> package for Sage, after reviewing existing packages, instead
>> of trying to bolt one of the existing packages onto Sage.
>
> I have honestly taken this into account, but there
Hi
> I'm going to suggest that interested parties just write a new
> package for Sage, after reviewing existing packages, instead
> of trying to bolt one of the existing packages onto Sage.
I have honestly taken this into account, but there are a couple of
cons:
- nobody is volunteering, so the
On Jun 11, 11:41 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> No, but I believe there are several Python packages that do this that
> you could install into Sage. (There was talk about adding this at one
> point, what is needed is a good list of all the best open-source
> packages out there and a discussion of
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>
...
>
> All the other people involved, and interested in a unit package,
> please show just to say "hi"
I'm interested in something for teaching (so very basic is sufficient)
say calculus /ODEs (eg, using DEs to solve a circuit or spring probl
Maurizio wrote:
>
> All the other people involved, and interested in a unit package,
> please show just to say "hi"
I'm still interested, but my time is even more limited than it was in
during the previous thread.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this
Maurizio wrote:
>
> All the other people involved, and interested in a unit package,
> please show just to say "hi"
>
>
I'm very interested in a unit conversion package and I've been following
the discussion with eager anticipation of something useful being
implemented. Unfortunately, I can't
>
> It seemed there was a fair amount of interest, but it there wasn't a
> obvious winning solution, and no one had enough incentive to advocate
> and push through a full plan. (Usually this isn't an indication that
> no one wants it, but that everyone is already busy trying to work on
> stuff mor
On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Maurizio wrote:
> Hi all
>
> On Jun 12, 7:41 am, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> No, but I believe there are several Python packages that do this that
>> you could install into Sage. (There was talk about adding this at one
>> point, what is needed is a good list of all
Hi all
On Jun 12, 7:41 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> No, but I believe there are several Python packages that do this that
> you could install into Sage. (There was talk about adding this at one
> point, what is needed is a good list of all the best open-source
> packages out there and a discussi
On 12 Jun., 04:53, lenient7 wrote:
> Does SAGE have functionality for the dimensional analysis or unit
> conversion? For example, identifying dimension of energy as MASS *
> LENGTH^2 * TIME^(-2) or converting inch into meter.
I don't know how experienced you are with Sage, so, let me add one
det
No, but I believe there are several Python packages that do this that
you could install into Sage. (There was talk about adding this at one
point, what is needed is a good list of all the best open-source
packages out there and a discussion of which one to choose and why).
On Jun 11, 2009,
revx wrote:
> Is there an easy way to do dimensional analysis with sagemath?
>
What do you mean by "dimensional analysis"?
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email t
32 matches
Mail list logo
