great: that's exactly the case. the adjacency matrix of transitive
closure is the reachability matrix, so this is a good workarround.
On 14 Maio, 16:16, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Grout wrote:
> > William Stein wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:57 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 14, 7:17 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So 1+1 = 1 and 1*1 = 1 and 1*0 = 0 and 1+0 = 1 and 0+0=0?
>> That's *not* a ring, so you shouldn't make matrices over it in
>> Sage, since in Sage all matric
On May 14, 7:17 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So 1+1 = 1 and 1*1 = 1 and 1*0 = 0 and 1+0 = 1 and 0+0=0?
> That's *not* a ring, so you shouldn't make matrices over it in
> Sage, since in Sage all matrices are over rings.
Once #2519 (lattices in the poset sense) is merged, I was
Jason Grout wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:57 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Pedro Patricio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
nope, booleans means 1+1=1.
take + as OR and * as AND in the propositional calculus.
>> S
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:57 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Pedro Patricio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> nope, booleans means 1+1=1.
>>> take + as OR and * as AND in the propositional calculus.
>
> So 1+1 = 1 and 1*1 = 1 a
