2018-03-16 17:50:21 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2017-06-21 02:17:01 -0500 | received badge | ● Good Question (source) |
2017-06-21 02:16:58 -0500 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |
2017-06-13 14:47:24 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2017-03-27 20:59:06 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2016-08-11 19:30:18 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2016-07-22 13:48:46 -0500 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |
2016-03-11 09:15:34 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2016-01-15 18:18:50 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2015-12-08 02:06:51 -0500 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |
2015-05-03 00:39:32 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2014-11-10 02:35:00 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2014-06-28 20:15:10 -0500 | marked best answer | Symbolic solve Following the change of variable thread, I wanted to streamline the whole process. Namely, using the same example in the above thread, I'd like to say The difference is, I wanted also Sage to automatically solve for x instead of providing x= sqrt(u-1), say. But when I tried the output was 1- What exactly is r1 ?? A way out (see this thread) seems to make of the solution a function of Now f is 2- What can I do to get +sqrt(u - 1) instead? Is this related to the positive function question there? |
2014-06-28 20:15:09 -0500 | marked best answer | Getting help inside Sage Sorry if it's a dumb question, folks. What are all the ways of getting help inside Sage? I would like some table like this: I ask this question because I only know the ?? and help() ways. But they don't always work: I tried simplify_full?? and help(simplify_full) but ... got errors! |
2014-06-28 20:15:08 -0500 | marked best answer | Change of variable in an integration How to indicate a change of variable to Sage in an integration when Sage seems clueless? |
2014-06-28 20:15:08 -0500 | marked best answer | Sympy integration algorithm towards -infinity Following achrzesz hint about integral's algorithm option, I tried (Sage 4.7.2): Unfortunately, I got: What's going wrong? |
2014-06-28 20:15:08 -0500 | marked best answer | Keyboard layout in Sage appliance Hi all, I'm currently testing Sagemath on a Windows 7 box via sage appliance (4.7.2). I wanted to try the interactive shell out but it is not usable as my host keyboard layout is fr and the guest fedora box for sage uses en. A quick search pointed me to the Final solution (see below): change layout via |
2014-06-28 20:15:07 -0500 | marked best answer | Interactive question in notebooks When trying to find some solution to the double integral problem and poking around with Sage (4.7.2), I stumbled upon this behavior: output (resembles maxima interaction): How can I answer to this (with nonzero)? Update: I accept @god.one solution below as there seems no way as for now to interactively answer those maxima questions. |
2014-05-21 22:04:48 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2014-02-20 02:54:00 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2014-02-11 02:46:35 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2014-02-04 01:32:16 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2014-01-28 01:44:12 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2014-01-03 08:31:57 -0500 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |
2013-08-28 02:13:38 -0500 | marked best answer | Symbolic solve So you could use I don't know how you got the Hope this helps! |
2013-07-14 12:43:59 -0500 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |
2013-07-08 17:49:46 -0500 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |
2013-03-27 23:27:35 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2013-03-16 01:53:16 -0500 | received badge | ● Taxonomist |
2013-01-07 07:33:40 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2012-12-14 05:53:57 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2012-12-09 23:49:55 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2012-10-29 12:44:41 -0500 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2012-10-09 03:04:16 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2012-07-28 10:19:27 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2012-07-25 19:39:41 -0500 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2012-04-06 09:38:46 -0500 | marked best answer | Interactive question in notebooks Hi, you can use the assume command which calculates to |
2012-02-13 09:58:13 -0500 | commented answer | Loading a predefined function But the .py file is on my local drive, not on the VM drive ... |
2012-02-13 09:54:19 -0500 | edited question | Piecewise assumptions (for integration) All right, still with these integration problems, and I don't know all the subtleties of passing extra-arguments to Maxima (ok, I reckon that @kcrisman doesn't stop pointing out Maxima flags now and then when some expert uses them but some list would be very handy). What I want is to integrate a function with the domain of integration broken into pieces. The problem is that the maxima engine requires different assumptions for each piece but an assumption seems to tie a variable globally. Example: In fact, this example is still related to the double integral thread over there. After a little but tedious pen and paper work, I could get rid of the absolute value by breaking the domain of integration into pieces but then I'm stuck again. Independently of my own shortcomings and maybe the hard nature of what I tried to compute, in my sense, the remaining problem causes are mainly twofold, we need to talk to Maxima (pass assumptions) and the assumption mechanisms in Sage are somehow weak. This is what I tried to get around these shortcomings and to answer the above question: Different problems arise: 1- If the integral call breaks (and this often occurs), the old_assumptions are not restored .. ok, this one should be easy and dealt with some exception handling but I don't know the Sage coding guideline here. 2- One big problem is the way Sage handles assumptions: they are global and (but maybe that feature is because of the fact that ...) they can't be made more stringent. Namely To be clear, I'm not against global assumptions but I just ... (more) |
2012-02-13 09:51:49 -0500 | commented question | Piecewise assumptions (for integration) See the updated question. Yeah, it's along the same lines as your example and the problem is that Maxima may need different sets of assumptions for each part of the domain. |