On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 1:03 AM Eric Majzoub wrote:
>
> I would like to debug the latex printing of an expression that ambiguous.
>
> To reproduce it:
> t = var('t')
> x = function('x')(t)
> latex( diff(x,t)^2 )
>
> This produces ambiguous output, essentially:
>
> partial_t x^2
>
> instead of
>
>
On Thursday, 26 October 2023 at 16:03:27 UTC-7 Eric Majzoub wrote:
I would like to debug the latex printing of an expression that ambiguous.
To reproduce it:
t = var('t')
x = function('x')(t)
latex( diff(x,t)^2 )
This produces ambiguous output, essentially:
partial_t x^2
instead of
(partial_t
If anyone here knows anything about canonical divisors and their
implementation in Sage, please see
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/74034/converting-algebraic-geometry-magmas-code-to-sage/.
The setup:
sage: P2. = ProjectiveSpace(QQ, 2)
sage: f = 2*x^5 - 4*x^3*y*z + x^2*y*z^2 + 2*x*y^3*z + 2*
A canonical divisor is the divisor of any differential on C so the
following does the trick:
sage: kC=C.function_field()
sage: kC(kC.base_field().gen(0)).differential().divisor()
It doesn't look like we quite have computation of Riemann-Roch spaces
natively in sage yet, so finding effective rep
By the way, the docstring of divisor() misses an example, it's
def divisor(self, v, base_ring=None, check=True, reduce=True):
r"""
Return the divisor specified by ``v``.
.. WARNING::
The coefficients of the divisor must be in the base ring
and
Hi Dima,
Yes, I noticed that, too. It also fails to provide any information about
what ``v`` should be (beyond saying that it should be a "valid object"):
there is no INPUT block.
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:51:10 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> By the way, the docstring of divisor() mi
On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 15:42:24 UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote:
It doesn't look like we quite have computation of Riemann-Roch spaces
natively in sage yet
Correction, that DOES seem to be implemented as well:
sage: kC=C.function_field()
sage: D=kC(kC.base_field().gen(0)).differential().divisor(
On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 1:02 AM John H Palmieri wrote:
> Yes, I noticed that, too. It also fails to provide any information about what
> ``v`` should be (beyond saying that it should be a "valid object"): there is
> no INPUT block.
I've left a comment here:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/com
