2022-04-26 13:37:30 +0200 | received badge | ● Nice Question (source) |

2016-07-28 11:29:04 +0200 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |

2012-10-12 15:43:28 +0200 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |

2012-05-03 12:09:44 +0200 | received badge | ● Teacher (source) |

2012-05-03 12:09:44 +0200 | received badge | ● Necromancer (source) |

2011-12-05 19:30:38 +0200 | answered a question | Lovasz number Here you go. I've tested this against all of the graphs in the graph database. This code is adapted from someone's thesis which I found online. I cannot find the author's email address to ask if it can be made GPL or similar. ` ` |

2011-11-06 11:51:07 +0200 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2011-01-07 09:27:57 +0200 | received badge | ● Student (source) |

2011-01-06 23:54:26 +0200 | asked a question | Round trip through Mathematica's FullSimplify The following command returns 1:
The issue is that Mathematica simplifies this expression to (-1)/(2/3), which it considers to be defined in terms of the primitive root. Sage on the other hand converts (-1)/(2/3) to 1, with the idea that any root will do. My question: is it a bug that putting this equation into Mathematica and bringing it back to Sage changes it from a complex number to a real number? |

Copyright Sage, 2010. Some rights reserved under creative commons license. Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.