2023-04-09 21:45:48 +0200 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2023-04-09 21:45:48 +0200 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2023-02-15 22:33:45 +0200 | edited answer | dimension of quotient space Here is an example code. It answers my own question. Sage: V = VectorSpace(GF(2),100) # example vector space Sage: def |
2023-02-15 22:24:02 +0200 | edited answer | dimension of quotient space Here is an example code. It answers my own question. Sage: V = VectorSpace(GF(2),100) # example vector space Sage: def |
2023-02-15 22:23:40 +0200 | edited answer | dimension of quotient space Here is an example code. It answers my own question. Sage: V = VectorSpace(GF(2),100) # example vector space Sage: def |
2023-02-15 22:10:20 +0200 | commented answer | dimension of quotient space @John-Palmieri, typo: the output is 10. |
2023-02-15 21:49:19 +0200 | commented answer | dimension of quotient space @John-Palmieri, typo: the answer is 10. |
2023-02-15 21:46:23 +0200 | edited answer | dimension of quotient space Here is an example code. It answers my own question. Sage: V = VectorSpace(GF(2),100) # example vector space Sage: def |
2023-02-15 21:45:02 +0200 | marked best answer | dimension of quotient space I am applying the the following theorem on dimension of quotient spaces. Let $x \neq 0$ be an element of a vector space $V$ over a field $K.$ Then $$ dim(V) = dim(Span(x)) + dim(V/Span(x)).$$ How can I write a Sage code to compute $dim(V)$ by recursively using this formula where you choose a nonzero element x until $dim(V/Span(x))$ is 1? Thanks. |
2023-02-15 16:27:31 +0200 | answered a question | dimension of quotient space Here is an example code. It answers my own question. Sage: V = VectorSpace(GF(2),100) # example vector space Sage: def |
2023-02-14 21:31:34 +0200 | commented question | dimension of quotient space @John-Palmieri, i I found the solution. Thanks. Should I close it? |
2023-02-14 21:31:18 +0200 | commented question | dimension of quotient space @john-palmieri, i I found the solution. Thanks. Should I close it? |
2023-02-14 21:30:28 +0200 | commented question | dimension of quotient space @John Palmier, i I found the solution. Thanks. Should I close it? |
2023-02-14 21:29:34 +0200 | commented question | dimension of quotient space I found the solution. Thanks. Should I close it? |
2023-02-14 20:16:22 +0200 | asked a question | dimension of quotient space dimension of quotient space I am applying the the following theorem on dimension of quotient spaces. Let $x \neq 0$ be a |
2021-05-16 17:07:27 +0200 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |
2020-09-21 17:20:49 +0200 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2020-05-26 18:16:36 +0200 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2018-12-19 04:26:42 +0200 | commented answer | Roots of multivariable polynomials with respect to one variable? I wrote down a one liner to define residue but the limiting part takes a huge amount of memory for a moderately big rational function in several variables. I am looking for other methods now. |
2018-12-18 20:00:59 +0200 | received badge | ● Good Question (source) |
2018-12-18 00:49:58 +0200 | received badge | ● Nice Question (source) |
2018-12-17 20:36:26 +0200 | commented answer | Roots of multivariable polynomials with respect to one variable? Thank you @rburing. Yes, the roots are instantaneous. I am working on the residues now. I will let you know if I have further questions. |
2018-12-17 19:36:18 +0200 | received badge | ● Supporter (source) |
2018-12-16 23:32:23 +0200 | asked a question | Roots of multivariable polynomials with respect to one variable? This question was previously titled "Finding residues of a huge multivariable rational function." From my understanding, when computing with huge rational functions, we shouldn't use symbolic variables. However, I don't see how to find roots and residues without symbolic variables. Here is a small scale example of the issue. I have a rational function that looks like below: $f(u_1,x_1,u_2,x_2,u_3,x_3) = \frac{1}{{\left(u_{1} u_{2} u_{3} - x_{1} x_{2} x_{3}\right)} {\left(u_{1} u_{2} u_{3} - 1\right)} {\left(u_{1} u_{2} - x_{1} x_{2}\right)} {\left(u_{1} u_{2} - 1\right)} {\left(u_{1} - x_{1}\right)} {\left(u_{1} - 1\right)}}$ First I want to solve for $u_1$ in the denominator and find those roots (poles) that have $x_1$ as below. Then I will loop through the roots and compute the residue of $f$ w.r.t. $u_1$ at those poles. The output is Then we choose those roots that have $x1$ Finally, we find the residue of $f$ w.r.t $u1$ of the rational function at the poles containing $x1.$ The output is then Then I replace $f$ with $ans1$ to continue to do the same process w.r.t $u2$ and poles containing $x2$ and finally w.r.t $u3$ and poles containing $x3.$ However, this consumes about 800GB of memory on an HPC when I feed it a larger rational function. Is there a way to find
Both .roots() and .residue() are not defined for rational functions that are not defined in terms of symbolic variables. |
2018-03-16 23:16:03 +0200 | commented answer | Representation as sums of squares built-in function @slelievre, cool. Thanks. |
2016-02-27 15:58:07 +0200 | commented answer | Representation as sums of squares built-in function @slelievre, thank you so much. I installed mathematica 10.3(latest issue) and was not able to call mathematica even if I followed all the instructions on how to use mathematica within sage. From what I read around the web, I have to downgrade to version 8 to be able to interface to mathematica from within Sage. Is that true or am I missing something with integrating version 10.3? |
2016-02-24 00:59:14 +0200 | commented answer | calling mathematica 9.0 in sage @Emmanuel, is there a follow up to your answer? I have Mathematica 10.3 and I have the following error "unable to start mathematica" |
2016-02-23 23:20:46 +0200 | marked best answer | Representation as sums of squares built-in function Is there a Sage implementation of writing a number as a sum of k squares for any k as described in the ticket here: trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16308 ? Thank you! Please see my comment below the first answer. |