2021-07-14 15:39:01 +0200 | commented question | Tensor product of polynomial algebras Even PolynomialRing(QQ, 'x').tensor_square() is broken. |

2021-07-09 08:17:54 +0200 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2021-06-09 23:09:03 +0200 | commented answer | Problem with plotting a 3d Bezier curve The fix is incorporated in sage 9.3! |

2021-05-27 21:11:14 +0200 | commented answer | Performance of PolynomialRing evaluation With #27261 (where __call__ goes via generic Python evaluation) I got sage: vec = workload[0][0] sage: %timeit represen |

2021-05-27 20:41:49 +0200 | commented answer | Performance of PolynomialRing evaluation With #27261 (where __call__ goes via generic Python evaluation) I got sage: vec = workload[0][0] sage: %timeit represen |

2021-05-06 19:12:50 +0200 | commented question | High memory usage when substituting variables Still there in sage 9.3.rc4 sage: R.<x,y,z> = QQ[] sage: import gc sage: _ = gc.collect(); get_memory_usage() 916 |

2021-05-06 18:54:57 +0200 | commented question | High memory usage when substituting variables Still there in sage 9.3.rc4 sage: R.<x,y,z> = QQ[] sage: import gc sage: _ = gc.collect(); get_memory_usage() 916 |

2021-04-27 21:54:51 +0200 | commented question | How to define function What do you mean by random? You want it uniformly among all possible functions? |

2021-04-26 08:28:06 +0200 | answered a question | How to work with points in GF(p**2) for a prime p The generator is obtained by doing sage: k.gen() z2 Here z2 is just its name. You can store it in a Python variable z |

2021-04-25 23:38:44 +0200 | edited answer | Get denominator with hold=True To find out about the possible extra arguments of a method you could access its documentation with a question mark. Here |

2021-04-25 23:37:37 +0200 | answered a question | Get denominator with hold=True There is an option sage: t2.denominator(normalize=False) |

2021-04-25 16:33:04 +0200 | edited answer | How to express the coefficients of an iterated group action on a basis as a matrix? When you write b1(y1,y2)= y1 this defines b1 as a symbolic function, not a polynomial. Note the difference sage: b1 |

2021-04-25 16:31:09 +0200 | commented answer | How to express the coefficients of an iterated group action on a basis as a matrix? You are right. To turn it into an answer to your question, you just need to change the lines building the matrix. You ca |

2021-04-25 08:45:23 +0200 | commented answer | How to express the coefficients of an iterated group action on a basis as a matrix? You just change the lines building the matrix in order to construct mat = [poly, transform(poly), transform(transform(po |

2021-04-25 08:44:37 +0200 | commented answer | How to express the coefficients of an iterated group action on a basis as a matrix? You just change the lines building the matrix. And build mat = [poly, transform(poly), transform(transform(poly)), ...]. |

2021-04-24 22:41:27 +0200 | answered a question | How to express the coefficients of an iterated group action on a basis as a matrix? When you write b1(y1,y2)= y1 this defines b1 as a symbolic function, not a polynomial. Note the difference sage: b1 |

2021-04-24 22:27:45 +0200 | commented answer | Convert element from fraction field of polynomial ring to number field And also thank you for the report. |

2021-04-23 20:59:43 +0200 | received badge | ● Good Answer (source) |

2021-04-23 09:33:15 +0200 | commented answer | Convert element from fraction field of polynomial ring to number field https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31716 changes the surprise to sage: a in Q, a in R, a in F (True, True, True) |

2021-04-22 23:09:50 +0200 | commented question | Matrix solutions to $A^k + B^k = C^k$ Repeating John question: what is the link with the Sage software? |

2021-04-22 23:08:18 +0200 | commented question | Matrix solutions to $A^k + B^k = C^k$ I agree with John, what is the link with the Sage software? |

2021-04-22 23:07:30 +0200 | commented question | Matrix solutions to $A^k + B^k = C^k$ A = diag(1,0,0), B = diag(0,1,0) and C = diag(1,1,0) works for all k. |

2021-04-22 17:07:12 +0200 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2021-04-22 16:23:13 +0200 | commented question | Convert element from fraction field of polynomial ring to number field Instead of going via _convert_non_number_field_element I would rather stick in a converter on the fraction field element |

2021-04-22 16:21:25 +0200 | commented question | Convert element from fraction field of polynomial ring to number field Instead of going via _convert_non_number_field_element I would rather stick in a converter on the fraction field element |

2021-04-22 16:20:50 +0200 | answered a question | Convert element from fraction field of polynomial ring to number field This is fixed in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31716 In the meantime, I would convert elt via F(elt.numerator()) / F |

2021-04-22 15:22:09 +0200 | commented question | Convert element from fraction field of polynomial ring to number field Instead of going via _convert_non_number_field_element I would rather stick in a converter on the fraction field element |

2021-04-20 14:39:39 +0200 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2021-04-18 19:12:37 +0200 | commented answer | Segmentation fault calling is_irreducible() @daira Is your full debian list of packages up to date with testing? If so, your post is misleading because it has nothi |

2021-04-18 19:12:27 +0200 | commented answer | Segmentation fault calling is_irreducible() @daria Is your full debian list of packages up to date with testing? If so, your post is misleading because it has nothi |

2021-04-18 19:08:21 +0200 | commented answer | Segmentation fault calling is_irreducible() @slelievre Installing from testing does require any compilation. Furthermore, compiling from source will solve Daira's t |

2021-04-17 20:13:49 +0200 | commented question | Running a for cycle in parallel Why do you think that parallelization will provide a speed up? Writing parallel code is extremy delicate unless it is em |

2021-04-17 20:09:58 +0200 | edited answer | Segmentation fault calling is_irreducible() (I made this an answer because characters are limited in comments) NOTE: As Samuel made me remark buster should install |

2021-04-17 20:07:25 +0200 | commented answer | Segmentation fault calling is_irreducible() In buster apt-get install sagemath installs 8.6. |

2021-04-17 18:12:25 +0200 | answered a question | Segmentation fault calling is_irreducible() (I made this an answer because characters are limited in comments) I can not reproduce the segmentation fault in docker |

2021-04-15 14:30:58 +0200 | answered a question | How can I request the cooperation of sagemath mathematicians and programmers for a project? If you want to factor N=8979 then trial division is your best choice (here in a very naive version) def factor_via_tria |

2021-04-14 20:38:57 +0200 | commented question | How can I request the cooperation of sagemath mathematicians and programmers for a project? As John adviced you should perform (b). |

2021-04-14 08:48:34 +0200 | commented question | Ring not recognized as a PID Note that Sage does not even recognize the maximal order as a PID sage: O = K.maximal_order() sage: O.class_number() 1 |

2021-04-12 18:00:37 +0200 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2021-04-12 08:23:26 +0200 | answered a question | interact: different behavior concerning **kwargs in SageCell an Jupyter notebook (partial answer) The reason why you have different behaviors is that interact in jupyter notebook is not the same object |

2021-04-11 22:05:14 +0200 | commented answer | inequalities in sagemath This equation is not removed in Ricardo's answer. Computing the set of solutions in this particular example is relativel |

2021-04-11 19:30:11 +0200 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2021-04-11 10:48:29 +0200 | commented question | inequalities in sagemath This is indeed unfortunate. The assumption works for elementary systems sage: assume(x > 0) sage: solve([x == -1], x |

2021-04-11 10:39:06 +0200 | edited answer | Possible problem in bezier_path.py hmmm I wonder who wrote that extremly buggy and untested code! You were exactly right vertices = self.path[0] was the li |

2021-04-11 10:37:12 +0200 | edited answer | Possible problem in bezier_path.py hmmm I wonder who wrote that extremly buggy code! You were exactly right vertices = self.path[0] was the line to blame. |

2021-04-11 10:36:47 +0200 | edited answer | Possible problem in bezier_path.py hmmm I wonder who wrote that extremly buggy code! You were exactly right vertices = self.path[0] was the line to blame. |

2021-04-11 10:24:59 +0200 | commented question | Possible problem in bezier_path.py hmmm I wonder who wrote that extremly buggy code https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31646 |

2021-04-11 09:50:20 +0200 | edited answer | Problem with plotting a 3d Bezier curve This looks like a bug and I opened the ticket #31640 to track the issue. Thanks for your report! The issue turns out to |

2021-04-11 03:06:22 +0200 | received badge | ● Good Answer (source) |

2021-04-11 01:48:28 +0200 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (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.