Emmanuel Charpentier's profile - activity

Since you insist on a text file, the Python documentation should answer your question. A remark : you are not solvng eq

Since you insist on a text file, the Python documentation should answer your question. Noe in passing : you are not sol

Since you insist on a text file, the Python documentation should answer your question.

The Python documentation should answer your question.

Your problem seems to be the use of arguments in a Python function rather than Sage-specific. A few notes : Your code

This tutorial and the relevant part of the manual should give you some inspiration... The very short version : load r

∫ is Unicode's U+222B. Depending on your platform, this can be input in various ways. For example : On most Linux's te

@FrédéricC : Would you mind making a proper answer for the benefit of future ask.sagemath.org perusers ?

@FrédéricC : Would you mind making a roper answer for the benefit of future ask.sagemath.org perusers ?

∫ is Unicode's U+222B. Depending on your platform, this can be input in various ways. For example : On most Linux's te

@Juanjo : you should make an answer of your comment, for the benefit of future ask.sagemath.org perusers.

What's wrong with : sage: G = graphs.Grid2dGraph(5,5) sage: %time hp=G.hamiltonian_path(algorithm="backtrack") CPU time

you may import controlunder a name convenient for you. Example : sage: import sympy as sy now you can use "sy" to acc

you may import controlunder a name convenient for you. Example : sage: import sympy as sy now you can use "sy" to acc

you may import controlunder a name convenient for you. Example : sage: import sympy as sy now you can use "sy" to acc

Well... Let's try to be lazy, and reuse work already done : sage: subsets? Docstring: Iterator over the *list*

@max-alekseyev/ : could you turn your comment into an answer, in order to help future perusers of ask.sagemath.org with

This interesting question regards the implementation choices made by the pakage's author(s), is indeed a mathematical qu

This interesting question regards the implementation choices made by the pakage's author(s), is a math question and coul

This interesting question regards the implementation choices made by the pakage's author(s), is a math question and coul

What is the problem with saving your "huge output" in a variable ?

Alternatives : sage: Ex=-(x*log(x)+(1-x)*log(1-x)) sage: solve(Ex.diff(x),x) [log(x) == log(-x + 1)] Fails indeed. bu

Alternatives : sage: Ex=-(x*log(x)+(1-x)*log(1-x)) sage: solve(Ex.diff(x),x) [log(x) == log(-x + 1)] Fails indeed. bu

Alternatives : sage: Ex=-(x*log(x)+(1-x)*log(1-x)) sage: solve(Ex.diff(x),x) [log(x) == log(-x + 1)] sage: solve(Ex.dif

Well... This problem (decomposing a matrix as the sum of $p$ matrices with your constraints) can be turned in the search

The .variety() method of ideals returns someting only if its .dimension() is 0 ; in other cases, you have to search the

Nope. After : sage: var("n, p") (n, p) the Python variable n is indeed bound to a symbolic variable (element of SR) :

Nope. After : sage: var("n, p") (n, p) the Python variable n is indeed bound to a symbolic variable (element of SR) :

Nope. After : sage: var("n, p") (n, p) Here, n is bound too a symbolic variable : sage: n.parent() Symbolic Ring B

I took the liberty to edit your "answer" in order to get somethng barely legible. I hope that I haven't introduced error

I asked this thing because a friend of mine made code for this but it is very time taking. For 2nd order matrices outp

Same problem here (9.7.beta5 sompiled from Git on Deban testing). But this : @interact def _(v=input_grid(1, 3,

Solving via SR's solve isn't exact : given : var('a,b,c,d,e,f,g,x') Sys=[(a - g) + 2, - (a*g - b) - 1, - (b*g - c), -

@georgeafr : @rburing is right. He was faster|smarter than me... My remark was not (even tentatively) an answer to your

@georgeafr : @rburning is right. He was faster|smarter than me... My remark was not (even tentatively) an answer to your

A better (checkable) solution is to use the ring of polynomials of QQbar : Vars=[str(u).upper() for u in vars] # My

A better (checkable) solution is to use the ring of polynomials of QQbar : Vars=[str(u).upper() for u in vars] # My

A better (checkable) solution is to use the ring of polynomials of QQbar : Vars=[str(u).upper() for u in vars] # My

A better (checkable) solution is to use the ring of polynomials of QQbar : Vars=[str(u).upper() for u in vars] # My

Solving via SR's solve isn't *exact` : given : var('a,b,c,d,e,f,g,x') Sys=[(a - g) + 2, - (a*g - b) - 1, - (b*g - c),

In the same vein : sage: mathematica.MittagLefflerE? Signature: mathematica.MittagLefflerE(*args, **kwds) Type:

First embryo of an idea : work by generating strings representing your "raw" polynomials, format this to LaTeX (possibly

Try this Google group...

A possibly cleaner solution (avoiding to define a truckload of unused symbolic variables and needlessly scratch predefi

A possibly cleaner solution (avoiding to define a truckload of unused symbolic variables and scratch needlessly predefin

In a system of 5 nonlinear equations with 5 unknowns using the solve command, Sage gives 5 lists of 5 solutions. Is it p

@ortollj : for the benefit of future ask(per)users, could you turn your comments in a structured answer ?

from srange? : Docstring: Return a list of numbers "start, start+step, ..., start+k*step", where "start+k*st

from srange? : Docstring: Return a list of numbers "start, start+step, ..., start+k*step", where "start+k*st