2020-05-07 18:07:40 +0100 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |

2019-05-20 08:00:26 +0100 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2018-04-23 13:11:57 +0100 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2018-04-11 01:20:31 +0100 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |

2015-12-01 15:34:19 +0100 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |

2015-09-30 02:38:16 +0100 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2015-09-30 02:38:16 +0100 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |

2015-02-16 14:32:17 +0100 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2015-01-28 04:36:34 +0100 | received badge | ● Great Answer (source) |

2014-06-24 08:33:53 +0100 | received badge | ● Great Answer (source) |

2013-04-23 06:57:40 +0100 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2012-10-23 17:49:15 +0100 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2012-10-19 00:48:59 +0100 | commented answer | add users to notebook from sage commandline I tried that from scratch (starting over and inserting the "nbu.set_accounts(True)", and it still doesn't work. |

2012-10-19 00:36:22 +0100 | commented answer | add users to notebook from sage commandline I thought I tried that, and it didn't work. But I will try again, perhaps things get messed up if it is not done initially. |

2012-10-17 13:22:02 +0100 | asked a question | add users to notebook from sage commandline I know I've done this before, but it was a few years ago and I can't remember exactly how I did it. Its possible that the notebook has changed in some relevant ways in the meantime. I'd like to add a bunch of users to a notebook from the commandline. I tried something like this: But the users do not show up when I start the notebook. |

2012-07-30 08:11:43 +0100 | received badge | ● Good Answer (source) |

2012-07-30 08:11:43 +0100 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2012-05-09 16:49:00 +0100 | received badge | ● Good Answer (source) |

2012-03-01 09:08:57 +0100 | received badge | ● Nice Question (source) |

2012-02-24 19:24:51 +0100 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2012-02-24 00:13:20 +0100 | answered a question | ode_solver : unable to convert to float You could just write a Runge-Kutta 4th-order solver in python, and if your system isn't too nasty that will speedily and happily use complex values. |

2012-02-24 00:09:49 +0100 | answered a question | Extract solutions from solve Sometimes - especially in more complicated multivariate cases - using the option solution_dict = True is convenient. It doesn't really help here, but for your example: |

2011-10-30 17:09:21 +0100 | received badge | ● Taxonomist |

2011-06-22 05:00:09 +0100 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2011-06-22 05:00:09 +0100 | received badge | ● Good Answer (source) |

2011-06-02 06:15:34 +0100 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2011-04-07 16:14:11 +0100 | answered a question | Complex forms and differentials To the best of my knowledge those operators are not currently implemented in Sage. The differential forms class is pretty new, and lacks a number of features currently. I know the developers of it had some future plans but I don't know if they included support for complex operators. |

2011-03-25 00:07:53 +0100 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2011-03-21 22:18:09 +0100 | answered a question | Mac OS vs Ubuntu for high performance computing Is this a laptop you are talking about? If so, go with the Mac. But if you will mostly be using the machine remotely then it probably gives more bang for the buck to put linux on generic hardware. To get a better answer I think you'd have to describe what sort of tasks cause bottlenecks in your workflow. |

2011-03-14 00:15:47 +0100 | commented answer | convert mpmath function to cython Thanks, that's very helpful. |

2011-03-05 10:56:24 +0100 | commented answer | convert mpmath function to cython Thanks. Yes, using a recurrence would be much better, but I'm trying to get away with not thinking too much. If I had more time for this project it would be cool to implement Fisher's exact test for the general case (larger contingency tables, not just 2 by 2) but that is much harder. |

2011-03-05 10:55:07 +0100 | commented answer | convert mpmath function to cython Its Fisher's exact test. I was using the R implementation, but the smallest value it will give is 10^(-16), and I'd like more precision. |

2011-03-04 15:39:58 +0100 | asked a question | convert mpmath function to cython I think I could figure this out eventually, but I'm hoping it will be a very easy question for someone out there. I would like to convert the following function to cython to be as fast as possible. I am not sure exactly what I need to import from mpmath to do that. Here is the function: A good test case would be myfisher_mp(1286, 9548, 133437, 148905), which takes about 1 second on my desktop. The inputs a1,a2,b1,b2 can be assumed to be positive ints. |

2011-02-03 06:46:03 +0100 | received badge | ● Great Answer (source) |

2011-02-03 06:46:03 +0100 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2011-02-03 06:46:03 +0100 | received badge | ● Good Answer (source) |

2011-02-03 06:46:03 +0100 | received badge | ● Guru (source) |

2011-02-03 06:46:03 +0100 | received badge | ● Enlightened (source) |

2011-01-14 01:41:07 +0100 | commented answer | Quotient decomposition by Groebner basis Thanks, somehow I had missed the "lift" command. That is exactly what I needed. |

2011-01-10 17:31:08 +0100 | answered a question | How many memories uses Sage? get_memory_usage() is probably what you want. |

2011-01-08 21:54:12 +0100 | asked a question | Quotient decomposition by Groebner basis I can accomplish the following task in awkward ways using syzygy modules, but I am wondering if there is a better way somehow. It would be nice to have a single command for it. Suppose we have a polynomial $P$ and a set of polynomials $Q_1,...,Q_n$, and it is possible to calculate the Groebner basis $G$ of the ideal generated by all the $Q_i$. Let $R$ be the remainder of $P$ after reducing by $G$. In Sage, how can we find polynomials $S_1,...,S_n$ such that $P = R + \sum S_i Q_i$? |

2011-01-08 21:53:13 +0100 | asked a question | Quotient decomposition by Groebner basis I can accomplish the following task in awkward ways using syzygy modules, but I am wondering if there is a better way somehow. It would be nice to have a single command for it. Suppose we have a polynomial $P$ and a set of polynomials $Q_1,...,Q_n$, and it is possible to calculate the Groebner basis $G$ of the ideal generated by all the $Q_i$. Let $R$ be the remainder of $P$ after reducing by $G$. In Sage, how can we find polynomials $S_1,...,S_n$ such that $P = R + \sum S_i Q_i$? |

2010-10-25 15:30:59 +0100 | answered a question | Speedup commonly used Sage functions? OK, that makes more sense. But for some purposes, xmrange is faster. Suppose you actually want the output of xmrange as a list. Then if you look at: the xmrange solution wins: although I'm sure there are more efficient ways to use xrange for this. |

2010-10-24 20:41:43 +0100 | answered a question | Speedup commonly used Sage functions? Those two functions don't really do the same thing. They both return [0,0,0], so if that's all you want you could do: The function test1 is probably slower because it has to actually construct an object to iterate over those values, while test2 does not. It might be more fair to compare functions that return all the values. |

2010-10-23 01:12:06 +0100 | answered a question | How to output from sage It really depends what your output is, but for some things you could do: Maybe I don't understand the question though. |

2010-10-14 23:11:24 +0100 | received badge | ● Self-Learner (source) |

2010-10-14 23:11:24 +0100 | received badge | ● Self-Learner (source) |

2010-10-14 23:11:12 +0100 | received badge | ● Teacher (source) |

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.