rburing's profile - activity

It works for me. Did you try restarting SageMath (to force it to load the package anew, since the package was first load

This could be an XY problem. Why do you want to iterate over the whole quotient ring? There could be a better way to do

This is something that could be built in and made easier for users. For now, I think it needs slight manual work. A vec

This is something that could be built in and made easier for users. For now, I think it needs slight manual work. A vec

Conceptually the code should be trying to find the preimage of an element which is in the image of a map (if I understoo

Can you be more precise?

The construction goes like this (obtained by entering E.height_pairing_matrix?? into a SageMath session): for j in rang

Here is a more natural way to do it: sage: R.<y> = PowerSeriesRing(ZZ) sage: R(b.polynomial().map_coefficients(la

From the documentation of show: from sage.plot.plot3d.base import SHOW_DEFAULTS SHOW_DEFAULTS['theme'] = 'dark'

Here's a way to do the elimination properly: R = PolynomialRing(QQ, names=['a','b','c','d','e','f','g'] + [f'm_{i}{j}'

Thanks @Max Alekseyev, I updated the answer making use of your hint.

Here's a way to do the elimination properly: R = PolynomialRing(QQ, names=['a','b','c','d','e','f','g'] + [f'm_{i}{j}'

Here's a way to do the elimination properly: R = PolynomialRing(QQ, names=['a','b','c','d','e','f','g'] + [f'm_{i}{j}'

With e.g. g[0,0].expr() which is a symbolic expression you'll be able to do more.

how to get the sagemath programs related to graphs with nodes and edges i need to write programs to draw a graph in gr

how to get the sagemath programs related to graphs with nodes and edges i need to write programs to draw a graph in gr

Then you have to add zero padding, and the resulting code is slightly longer, though arguably a bit more readable. Feel

@Max Then you have to add zero padding, and the resulting code is slightly longer, though arguably a bit more readable.

I agree with you. The alternative is a list of integers. I would expect to be able to use a single integer (interpreted

sage: length = 10 sage: Bitset(f"{{:0{length}b}}".format(randint(0, 2**length - 1))) 0010101001 sage: Bitset(f"{{:0{leng

windows 10 and sage How does one use Sage under Windows 10?

It's hard to read but not impossible: in each term the first factor in parentheses is in the base ring G1, and the secon

The internal representation is dense. You can (efficiently) get the dense list of coefficients as follows: sage: p.coef

The internal representation is dense. You can (efficiently) get the dense list of coefficients as follows: sage: p.coef

The default value is symbolic_sum, which has a fallback to Python's sum when few arguments are given. See e.g. the outpu

The default value is symbolic_sum, which has a fallback to Python's sum when few arguments are given. See e.g. sum?? in

@Max The default value is symbolic_sum, which has a fallback to Python's sum when few arguments are given. See e.g. sum?

Indeed, one should avoid using names of builtin functions for variables, to avoid losing access to the functions. To get

Yes they are different, the documentation of canonical_label states that it takes an algorithm parameter, and the defaul

Yes they are different, the documentation of canonical_label states that it takes an algorithm parameter, and the defaul

What do you want to do if J.dimension() > 0 (i.e. there are not only common points but there is a common curve or sur

What do you want to do if J.dimension() > 0 (i.e. there are not only common points but there is a common curve or sur

What do you want to do if J.dimension() > 0 (i.e. there are not only common points but there is a common curve or sur

Another alternative (after canonicalizing the radical) is to use an ExpressionTreeWalker to substitute numerical approxi

I updated the function to determine the variable names automatically.

Here is something that works on your second example: def evaluate_with_units(expr): expr_canonical = expr.canonical

Here is something that works on your second example: def evaluate_with_units(expr): expr_canonical = expr.canonical

Instead of using the symbolic sum that you mention, you can use Python's built-in sum that takes an iterable such as a g

I haven't used it myself, but CoCalc has a custom reimplementation of nbgrader: CoCalc Manual / Instructor Guide / Tea

No it is not, in the second instance you wrote b+b instead of b*b, which is not the same thing when b=8.