On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:01:47 AM UTC-7, Maarten Derickx wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mercredi 17 avril 2013 18:07:04 UTC+2, John H Palmieri a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:58:15 AM UTC-7, Francois Maltey wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> I must declare "assume" twice. Firs
Le mercredi 17 avril 2013 18:07:04 UTC+2, John H Palmieri a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:58:15 AM UTC-7, Francois Maltey wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I must declare "assume" twice. First time, I get an unevalued form.
>> After the second assume, I get the fine result :
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:58:15 AM UTC-7, Francois Maltey wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I must declare "assume" twice. First time, I get an unevalued form.
> After the second assume, I get the fine result :
> I use Sage 5.7
>
> sage: forget () ; var('n')
> n
> sage: assume ((x<1) and
btw:
sage: a,b,c,= var('a b c'); integrate(1/(a-b-c*sin(x)) ,x,
algorithm="mathematica_free")
-2*arctan(-((a - b)*tan(1/2*x) - c)/sqrt(a^2 - 2*a*b + b^2 - c^2))/
sqrt(a^2 - 2*a*b + b^2 - c^2)
And now you may try newton-leibniz formula
R.
On 28 ún, 18:34, WH27 wrote:
> Can't seem to perform the
Integration is done via Maxima and Maxima also asks about the sign:
Robert
[ma...@thinkpad /opt/sage]$ ./sage -maxima
;;; Loading #P"/opt/sage-4.3.2/local/lib/ecl/defsystem.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/opt/sage-4.3.2/local/lib/ecl/cmp.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/opt/sage-4.3.2/local/lib/ecl/sysfun.lsp"
Maxima 5.
On Jul 14, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Doug wrote:
> Hmm. I've also had trouble interpreting what assume() affects, and I'm
> glad to hear that I'm not the only one. What Robert says here helps a
> lot, but is there anything written anywhere else that goes into a bit
> more detail? I'm sure there's more
Hmm. I've also had trouble interpreting what assume() affects, and I'm
glad to hear that I'm not the only one. What Robert says here helps a
lot, but is there anything written anywhere else that goes into a bit
more detail? I'm sure there's more to it than a missing filter on the
output of solv
On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Neal wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I thought I'd share the following:
>>
>> sage: assume(x>0)
>> sage: solve([x^2-1],x)
>> [x == -1, x == 1]
>>
>> Shouldn't it not give me the negative solution? Also:
>>
>> sage
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Neal wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I thought I'd share the following:
>
> sage: assume(x>0)
> sage: solve([x^2-1],x)
> [x == -1, x == 1]
>
> Shouldn't it not give me the negative solution? Also:
>
> sage: assume(x == 1)
> sage: bool(x == 1)
> False
We have been rec
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:51 AM, Stan Schymanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm probably not the right one to respond to this one, but please, do!
> I get reminded of this every time I run through any of my worksheets,
> but then I usually get distracted by the results before I get to send
> o
I'm probably not the right one to respond to this one, but please, do!
I get reminded of this every time I run through any of my worksheets,
but then I usually get distracted by the results before I get to send
out an email about it. Thanks for picking it up again!
Stan
On Nov 20, 6:46 am, mabsh
On Oct 14, 6:47 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This could be greatly sped up by changing
> maxima.assume('...')
> to
> maxima.eval("assume(..)")
> in the calculus code...
>
> sage: timeit("maxima.eval('assume(x>0)')")
> 5 loops, best of 3: 53.2 ms per loop
> sage: timeit("
This could be greatly sped up by changing
maxima.assume('...')
to
maxima.eval("assume(..)")
in the calculus code...
sage: timeit("maxima.eval('assume(x>0)')")
5 loops, best of 3: 53.2 ms per loop
sage: timeit("maxima.assume(x>0)")
5 loops, best of 3: 122 ms per loop
I don't have time to do
13 matches
Mail list logo
