Le lun. 30 nov. 2020 à 13:37, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:16 AM Vincent Delecroix
> <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Le 30/11/2020 à 00:48, slelievre a écrit :
> > > 2020-11-29 21:23:36 UTC, Guillermo:
> > >>
> > >> I wonder what would be wrong with replacing '
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:16 AM Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le 30/11/2020 à 00:48, slelievre a écrit :
> > 2020-11-29 21:23:36 UTC, Guillermo:
> >>
> >> I wonder what would be wrong with replacing '!' → '.factorial()'
> >
> > Interesting idea. Just be careful with `!=`
Le 30/11/2020 à 00:48, slelievre a écrit :
2020-11-29 21:23:36 UTC, Guillermo:
I wonder what would be wrong with replacing '!' → '.factorial()'
Interesting idea. Just be careful with `!=` of course.
Indeed the expression "3!=3" is ambiguous... Of course one can choose
a priority (3!)=(3) o
On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 1:23:36 PM UTC-8 list...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I agree with you, but at the same time I wonder what would be wrong with
> replacing
> '!' → '.factorial()'
>
> Good observation: python already has postfix operators! I still don't like
factorial notation; not even i
2020-11-29 21:23:36 UTC, Guillermo:
>
> I wonder what would be wrong with replacing '!' → '.factorial()'
Interesting idea. Just be careful with `!=` of course.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and s
Hi Nils.
I agree with you, but at the same time I wonder what would be wrong with
replacing
'!' → '.factorial()'
Best regards,
Guillermo
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 at 22:02, Nils Bruin wrote:
> With the current regexp-based rewriting we'd need a pattern of the kind
> '!' -> 'factorial( are doing an
Hi Nils,
fair enough. I didn't deeply think about it, my naive impression was
that what the preparser does to
R. = QQ[]
is at least as complicated as dealing with the exclamation mark. But
I guess you're right: It isn't.
Best regards,
Simon
On 2020-11-29, Nils Bruin wrote:
> With the current
With the current regexp-based rewriting we'd need a pattern of the kind
'!' -> 'factorial( '**" but that's very
basic and doesn't need any context. To change an implicit unary postfix
operator to an explicitly parenthesized prefix operator need almost
complete parsing. Had the factorial been ex
On 2020-11-29, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> On 2020-10-28, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>> Nope. This syntactic sugar is provided by `Maxima`'s and `Mathematica`'s
>> readers, but not by Sage preparser.
>
> Would it be nice (and easy) to have in Sage? What prevents the preparser
> from un
Hi Emmanuel,
On 2020-10-28, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> Nope. This syntactic sugar is provided by `Maxima`'s and `Mathematica`'s
> readers, but not by Sage preparser.
Would it be nice (and easy) to have in Sage? What prevents the preparser
from understanding "!"?
Best regards,
Simon
--
You
Nope. This syntactic sugar is provided by `Maxima`'s and `Mathematica`'s
readers, but not by Sage preparser.
BTW, I'd write `gamma(3/2)` rather than `factorial(/2)`...
Le mercredi 28 octobre 2020 à 09:56:24 UTC+1, HG a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know if it is possible to use ! instead fa
0<= u_i <= l-i
2013/11/13 Juan Grados
> Let be s between 1 and l!-1 an integer value then s can expressed uniquely
> than:
>
> s = u1*(l-1)! + u2*(l-2)!+ ... ul*0
>
> Is there any function to find the values u1, u2, ..., ul in SAGE or python?
>
> --
> ---
12 matches
Mail list logo
