cmark's profile - activity

This equation cannot be presented as a polynomial: sage: f = x^2/(x+1) >= 0 sage: expand(f) x^2/(x + 1) >= 0 sage

This equation cannot be presented as a polynomial: sage: f = x^2/(x+1) >= 0 sage: expand(f) x^2/(x + 1) >= 0 sage

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

I've done everything I could, please use the code which works best for you.

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

I've done everything I could for you, please use the code which works best for you.

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

The polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = RF[] result = sol

How you defined the polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = R

How you defined the polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = R

How you defined the polynomial ring is the problem, without it, it runs perfectly: RF = RealField(300) #P.<x> = R

Alright, I couldn't contain myself and had one last idea, using Sage's very own 'parallel' module, please check it out,

Alright, I couldn't contain myself and had one last idea, using Sage's very own 'parallel' module, please check it out,

Alright, I couldn't contain myself and had one last idea, using Sage's very own 'parallel' module, please check it out.

I couldn't run your original code as-is, I had to make some modifications to it. After that I've made some more (mostly

Yup, I noted that, but as it seems, I can't make this code faster and still work reliably. These two codes are my best o

Yup, I noted that, but as it seems, I can't make this code to be faster and still work reliably. These two codes are my

The previously mentioned code is now the second code in my answer. I think this is the end of the road for me; also, I w

The previously mentioned code is now the second code in my answer.

I don't know. At some point I've introduced an ifninite loop but couldn't find to so I took a step back and went back to

I couldn't run your original code as-is, I had to make some modifications to it. After that I've made some more (mostly

Thanks, I didn't notice. However, I can't seem to run the input you gave me (an example run before the problem): user@h

No, what I meant is the actual code (that's what I wrote :)), what you changed in the script. The original, what I'm usi

No, what I meant is the actual code (that's what I wrote, too :)), what you changed in the script. The original, what I'

I just ran my latest code (with the original data in your very first script, you can see I never changed it), please see

I just ran my latest code (with the original data in your very first script), please see that I experience no issues: u

I just ran my latest code (with the original data in your very first script), please see that I experience no issues: u

I just ran my latest code (with the original data in your very first script), please see that I experience no issues: u

Are you quite sure you ran the new code? I ran it with test numbers and received no errors whatsoever. However, I've ad

I couldn't run your original code as-is, I had to make some modifications to it. After that I've made some more (mostly

Are you quite sure you ran the new code? I ran it with test numbers and received no errors whatsoever. However, I've ad

I've edited the code, please try that (I'm not at a computer at the moment so I couldn't try, I just hope it does work a

Sorry about that, the 'a' and 'b' variables were defined out of scope, now I've edited the code again (also could ran th

Sorry about that, the 'a' and 'b' variables were defined out of scope, now I've edited the code again (also ran, it did

I couldn't run your original code as-is, I had to make some modifications to it. After that I've made some more (mostly

I've edited the code, please try that (I'm not at a computer so I couldn't try, I just hope it does work as you expected

I've edited the code, please try that (I'm not at a computer so I couldn't try, I just hope it does work as you expected

I've edited the code, please try that (I'm not at a computer so I couln't try, I just hope it does work as you expected)

Give this one a try: def find_common_lists(lists): common_lists = [] for i in range(len(lists)): for j

Give this one a try: def find_common_lists(lists): common_lists = [] for i in range(len(lists)): for j

There was indeed a typo in the beginning of the code. The itertools module was indeed missing, sorry about them (I'm wor

There was indeed a typo in the beginning of the code, sorry about that. The itertools module was indeed missing, sorry a