2023-12-12 19:17:25 +0200 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2023-12-12 19:17:25 +0200 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2022-12-29 18:32:06 +0200 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2021-08-25 19:33:08 +0200 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2021-04-12 06:19:54 +0200 | asked a question | Is there a way to compute the "correct" distributional answer, -4*pi*dirac_delta(r), as the Laplacian of 1/r (in spherical coordinates on Euclidean space)? Is there a way to compute the "correct" distributional answer, -4*pi*dirac_delta(r), as the Laplacian of 1/r (in spheric |
2021-04-10 20:01:33 +0200 | received badge | ● Nice Question (source) |
2021-04-09 01:37:42 +0200 | marked best answer | Is there a built-in way to integrate a vector or differential form field on an embedded submanifold of Euclidean space? Reasons for asking: I'm doing calculations related to some problems in electromagnetism, and want to be able to compute fluxes, circulations, and similar integrals of vector fields over submanifolds of R^3. Ideally, I'd just define the surface or region of interest, then pass the (existing) field and domain to some built-in function to compute the relevant integral. Does such a thing exist at present? |
2021-04-09 01:37:05 +0200 | marked best answer | Is there a way to define a submanifold of a Euclidean space by providing a list of implicit constraints, instead of by declaring a separate manifold and explicitly defining the embedding? Reasons for asking: My ultimate goal is to be able to integrate vector and form fields on surfaces defined by constraints in a 3D Euclidean space. A simple example would be the sphere (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = R^2). |
2021-04-09 01:36:30 +0200 | commented answer | Is there a way to define a submanifold of a Euclidean space by providing a list of implicit constraints, instead of by declaring a separate manifold and explicitly defining the embedding? Thanks, @eric_g---looks like you got to all three of my submanifold-related questions. Apologies for being repetitious; |
2021-04-09 01:33:12 +0200 | commented answer | Is there a built-in way to integrate a vector or differential form field on an embedded submanifold of Euclidean space? Again, thanks. I'll take a look at the ticket, but am not incredibly optimistic about my ability to implement this func |
2021-04-09 01:31:42 +0200 | marked best answer | How can I define a submanifold-with-boundary of a Euclidean space in Sage? Reasons for asking: I'd like to integrate a differential form over, say, a finite cylinder, and then extract the boundary of the cylinder for further computations. |
2021-04-09 01:31:39 +0200 | commented answer | How can I define a submanifold-with-boundary of a Euclidean space in Sage? Thanks. I thought this might be the case, but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious. |
2021-04-07 20:09:41 +0200 | asked a question | Is there a way to define a submanifold of a Euclidean space by providing a list of implicit constraints, instead of by declaring a separate manifold and explicitly defining the embedding? Is there a way to define a submanifold of a Euclidean space by providing a list of implicit constraints, instead of by d |
2021-04-07 20:03:54 +0200 | asked a question | Is there a built-in way to integrate a vector or differential form field on an embedded submanifold of Euclidean space? Is there a built-in way to integrate a vector or differential form field on an embedded submanifold of Euclidean space? |
2021-04-07 19:59:42 +0200 | asked a question | How can I define a submanifold-with-boundary of a Euclidean space in Sage? How can I define a submanifold-with-boundary of a Euclidean space in Sage? Reasons for asking: I'd like to integrate a d |
2021-04-03 03:05:24 +0200 | marked best answer | Is there a way to specify that `\sqrt{}`s should be avoided in favor of exponents when using the `latex()` function? Background: I'm using Sage to do some computations for a LaTeX document I'm preparing. My preferred approach is to include the script directly in the markup, using SageTeX to parse the code and print the results in TeX-readable form. The computations relevant to this question result in a longish list of numbers, most of which are of the form The problem: When I call the Obviously, I could just generate a table and then copy-paste it into my document, tweaking where necessary. I could also try writing a little Python function to massage the output into the desired form. But it made me wonder if there is any way to control or customize the output of Specific question: Is there a way to "tell" Sage to avoid using |
2021-04-03 03:05:24 +0200 | received badge | ● Scholar (source) |
2021-04-03 03:05:15 +0200 | received badge | ● Supporter (source) |
2021-04-03 03:04:11 +0200 | commented question | Is there a way to specify that `\sqrt{}`s should be avoided in favor of exponents when using the `latex()` function? Thanks, Emmanuel---this is what I feared. I imagine writing a fully satisfactory solution to this problem that worked o |
2021-04-03 02:54:32 +0200 | commented answer | Is there a way to specify that `\sqrt{}`s should be avoided in favor of exponents when using the `latex()` function? Thanks for the amazing response, @dsejas! I fully expected to have to write something like this myself if it came down |
2021-04-01 11:09:56 +0200 | received badge | ● Student (source) |
2021-04-01 11:04:30 +0200 | asked a question | Is there a way to specify that `\sqrt{}`s should be avoided in favor of exponents when using the `latex()` function? Is there a way to specify that `\sqrt{}`s should be avoided in favor of exponents when using the `latex()` function? Bac |