I realize that my 4th paragraph (specifically "the implicit
replacement...") is not very truthful. It may be a good first
explanation, but there's a more technical answer if you (or anyone)
cares for one.
when you try
plot( foo, ...)
then the first thing sage does is evaluate "foo" once. It has
"lambda x : f(x)" should read "the function which maps x to f(x)". It
has nothing to do with symbolic computations, and exists in Python.
note that "lambda x : x^2" is exactly the same as "lambda y : y^2",
which is mathematically very sound. Using the symbolic ring however,
if x and y are formal v
Partial seems useful, thank you. The Lambda solutions also work.
But what IS lambda anyway? I don't see that its doing anything other
than being syntactic verbose.
On Apr 9, 7:24 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 4/8/11 2:00 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, April 8, 2011 11:03:14 AM
On 4/8/11 2:00 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2011 11:03:14 AM UTC-7, ObsessiveMathsFreak wrote:
I have a python type function taking two variables is defined in such
a say that accidental evaluation is a possibility. Here is a
simplified version
def h(x,n):
On Friday, April 8, 2011 3:59:23 PM UTC-7, ObsessiveMathsFreak wrote:
>
> This notation isn't very flexible though. For example, suppose I
> wanted to plot h(-x,n) over the same range.
>
> Can this be done without calling the symbolic engine? Is there a way
> to bypass symbolic plots altogethe
> On Apr 8, 11:25 pm, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 8, 2011 2:51:03 PM UTC-7, ObsessiveMathsFreak wrote:
>
> > > That worked, thank you. But I don't understand why the standard
> > > notation has so many problems. What exactly is going wrong?
>
> > I think this is what's going on:
This notation isn't very flexible though. For example, suppose I
wanted to plot h(-x,n) over the same range.
Can this be done without calling the symbolic engine? Is there a way
to bypass symbolic plots altogether?
On Apr 8, 11:25 pm, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2011 2:51:03 PM
On Friday, April 8, 2011 2:51:03 PM UTC-7, ObsessiveMathsFreak wrote:
>
> That worked, thank you. But I don't understand why the standard
> notation has so many problems. What exactly is going wrong?
>
I think this is what's going on: if you start with this:
> > def h(x,n):
> > >if x>2
That worked, thank you. But I don't understand why the standard
notation has so many problems. What exactly is going wrong?
On Apr 8, 8:00 pm, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2011 11:03:14 AM UTC-7, ObsessiveMathsFreak wrote:
>
> > I have a python type function taking two variables i
Or:
sage: plot(lambda x: h(x,3), (x, 0, 4),exclude=[2])
On 8 Kwi, 21:00, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2011 11:03:14 AM UTC-7, ObsessiveMathsFreak wrote:
>
> > I have a python type function taking two variables is defined in such
> > a say that accidental evaluation is a possibili
On Friday, April 8, 2011 11:03:14 AM UTC-7, ObsessiveMathsFreak wrote:
>
> I have a python type function taking two variables is defined in such
> a say that accidental evaluation is a possibility. Here is a
> simplified version
>
> def h(x,n):
>if x>2:
>return n-x
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
