How to make Sage to solve the equation?
Slava
solve(x^2*log(x, 2) == 1, x);
It answers me:
[x^2 == log(2)/log(x)]
It,s true, but how can i get the numerical value of x?
William Stein
sage: plot(x^2*log(x,2)-1, 0,2)
[nice plot so you can understand what is going on]
sage: find_root(x^2*log(x,2)-1,1, 2)
1.4142135623730951
calc...@aol.com
sage: plot(x^2*log(x,2)-1, 0,2)
[nice plot so you can understand what is going on]
sage: find_root(x^2*log(x,2)-1,1, 2)
1.4142135623730951
<<
suggested (see above).
Now, from the plot, it there seems to be no other roots between 0 and 2
so I entered
sage: find_root(x^2*log(x,2)-1,0, 2)
and got the root = 0.0
what am I missing here?
TIA,
AJG
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher and Professor
Applied Math, Physics and Comp Sci
Baldwin High and Nassau CC
The Calculus and CompSci Project Online!
http://calcpage.tripod.com
-----Original Message-----
From: William Stein <wst...@gmail.com>
To: sage-s...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 6:54 pm
Subject: [sage-support] Re: How to make Sage to solve the equation?
Robert Bradshaw
> sage: plot(x^2*log(x,2)-1, 0,2)
> [nice plot so you can understand what is going on]
>
> sage: find_root(x^2*log(x,2)-1,1, 2)
> 1.4142135623730951
> <<
>
> Hi, I'm trying out SAGE for the first time, so I entered what you
> suggested (see above).
>
> Now, from the plot, it there seems to be no other roots between 0
> and 2
> so I entered
>
>
> sage: find_root(x^2*log(x,2)-1,0, 2)
> and got the root = 0.0
>
> what am I missing here?
This function is not defined at the left endpoint, so you are
probably violating some assumption on the underlying optimization
algorithm used. However, I would much rather have an error here than
an incorrect value.
- Robert
mabshoff
On Jan 3, 4:10 pm, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
> sage: plot(x^2*log(x,2)-1, 0,2)
> [nice plot so you can understand what is going on]
>
> sage: find_root(x^2*log(x,2)-1,1, 2)
> 1.4142135623730951
> <<
>
> Hi, I'm trying out SAGE for the first time, so I entered what you
> suggested (see above).
>
> Now, from the plot, it there seems to be no other roots between 0 and 2
> so I entered
>
> sage: find_root(x^2*log(x,2)-1,0, 2)
> and got the root = 0.0
>
> what am I missing here?
sage: sage: find_root(1/(x-1)+1,0, 2)
0.0
sage: sage: find_root(1/(x-1)+1,0.00001, 2)
1.0000000000011564
It seems that there is trouble when you have a singularity for one of
that starting points. Obviously this needs to be fixed :)
> TIA,
> AJG
Cheers,
Michael
> A. Jorge Garcia
> Teacher and Professor
> Applied Math, Physics and Comp Sci
> Baldwin High and Nassau CC
>
calc...@aol.com
So, why won't sage return some sort of domain error?
I noticed something similar when I plotted (x^2-1)/(x-1) and got the
graph of x+1.
I was hoping for a removeable discontinuity to show in the graph!
IE a hole in y=x+1 at x=1.
TIA,
AJG
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher and Professor
mailto:calc...@aol.com
ftp://ftp.baldwinschools.net
http://calcpage.tripod.com/bshs
mabshoff
On Jan 3, 4:33 pm, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
Hi AJG,
> Exactly, the function log base 2 of x is not defined at 0.
> So, why won't sage return some sort of domain error?
there, but we will check. Somebody please open a ticket for this.
> I noticed something similar when I plotted (x^2-1)/(x-1) and got the
> graph of x+1.
> I was hoping for a removeable discontinuity to show in the graph!
> IE a hole in y=x+1 at x=1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sage Version 3.2.3.final, Release Date: 2009-01-02 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage: f=(x^2-1)/(x-1); f
(x^2 - 1)/(x - 1)
sage: f.simplify()
(x^2 - 1)/(x - 1)
sage: f.simplify_full()
x + 1
sage:
Not sure is this is an issue with Maxima, but I would guess so.
simplify_full() shouldn't do this since it is clearly mathematically
not equivalent. My suspicion is that we probably call simplify_full()
before plotting and/or feeding it into _fast_float(). Someone please
open another ticket for this one.
> TIA,
> AJG
Cheers,
Michael
> A. Jorge Garcia
> Teacher and Professor
> Applied Math and Comp Sci
> Baldwin High and Nassau CC
> Long Island, NY, USA
>
calc...@aol.com
particular task. You mention there may be a problem with maxima or
numpy, how are we to know?
TIA,
AJG
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher and Professor
William Stein
"cancelling the greatest common divisor of the numerator and
denominator..." in the docs for ratexpand, which is called in the
course of the above. Who says simplify_full() shouldn't do the above?
Mathematica also does the above simplification:
sage: mathematica.eval('Simplify[(x^2-1)/(x-1)]')
1 + x
I don't think there is any claim that simplify(expr) gives back a 100%
mathematically equivalent expression. However, the types of changes
that occur are well defined.
> My suspicion is that we probably call simplify_full()
> before plotting and/or feeding it into _fast_float(). Someone please
> open another ticket for this one.
William
>
>> TIA,
>> AJG
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
>> A. Jorge Garcia
>> Teacher and Professor
>> Applied Math and Comp Sci
>> Baldwin High and Nassau CC
>> Long Island, NY, USA
>>
>> mailto:calcp...@aol.comftp://ftp.baldwinschools.nethttp://calcpage.tripod.com/bshs
> >
>
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
mabshoff
On Jan 3, 5:01 pm, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
> That's another issue: how do I know which package SAGE is using for a
> particular task. You mention there may be a problem with maxima or
> numpy, how are we to know?
some developer will be able to tell you. You can look at the source
code of some operation foo by running foo??
> TIA,
> AJG
Cheers,
Michael
> A. Jorge Garcia
> Teacher and Professor
>
mabshoff
seems to be more careful here than MMA. But then I don't do symbolic
manipulation, but I must say I am very surprised.
> Mathematica also does the above simplification:
>
> sage: mathematica.eval('Simplify[(x^2-1)/(x-1)]')
> 1 + x
maybe the MMA documentation defines what Simplify does.
> I don't think there is any claim that simplify(expr) gives back a 100%
> mathematically equivalent expression. However, the types of changes
> that occur are well defined.
> > My suspicion is that we probably call simplify_full()
> > before plotting and/or feeding it into _fast_float(). Someone please
> > open another ticket for this one.
>
> I do not think fast_float calls simplify_full.
more familiar with the plotting code will find out.
> William
Cheers,
Michael
Robert Bradshaw
> Exactly, the function log base 2 of x is not defined at 0.
> So, why won't sage return some sort of domain error?
Sage doesn't test to see if the function is defined on the whole
domain (if this is even a decidable question in general, and I bet
it's not), it just passes the expression to maxima and/or numpy. Of
course, there is lots of room for improvement, and I don't like the
current behavior.
> I noticed something similar when I plotted (x^2-1)/(x-1) and got the
> graph of x+1.
> I was hoping for a removeable discontinuity to show in the graph!
> IE a hole in y=x+1 at x=1.
If you evaluate (x^2-1)/(x-1) at 100, or even 1000s of random points
say, between 0 and 10, chances are very slim you'll try and evaluate
it at the point x=1. Thus when you interpolate the rest of the graph
it would come out as a straight line. Also, it's unclear how much of
a "hole" you would want to see--mathematically even one pixel would
be too large.
It would be nice to do something more clever than evaluate at a bunch
of points and "connect" the dots, but then there is no end to the
amount of cleverness one could ask for.
- Robert
Calc...@aol.com
Also, it's unclear how much of
a "hole" you would want to see--mathematically even one pixel would
be too large.
AJG
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher & Professor
Applied Math, Physics & CS
Baldwin HS & Nassau CC
calc...@aol.com
cisthe...@aol.com
CALCPAGE: The CALCulus and Computer Science Archive PAGE
http://calcpage.tripod.com
SFFBCLUB: Science Fact & Fiction Book CLUB
Search EBay for "ti active"
Search Ebay for "knoppix slax"
Search EBay for "knoppix quantian"
Search EBay for "knoppix manual"
Search EBay for "fractal art signed numbered"
CISTHETA: The OpenMosix Linux Cluster
http://cistheta2007.deviantart.com
YOUTUBE: APCS Instructional Videos
http://www.youtube.com/cistheta2007
CENTAURI: APCS ftpSite
ftp://centauri.baldwinschools.net
ftp://65.254.7.10
New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines.
John Cremona
computer algebra systems from the year dot.
From one point of view, (x^2-1)/(x-1) defines a "rational function" in
one variable, i.e. an element of the field of all rational functions,
denoted CC(x) if the coefficients come from CC (say). In this
algebraic context, the element just defined is the same as the element
x+1 and the simplification is 100% valid.
From another point of view, (x^2-1)/(x-1) is a formula defining a
function of x for all values of x where the function is "defined", so
-- as this is a fraction -- excluding any values where the denominator
evaluates to 0. In that case it defines a function on the punctured
domain where x!=1. In this case, as the original poster remarks, it's
a removable singularity and if we define the function's value at x=1
to be 2 then we get back the function x+1.
Things get much more complicated when there are side conditions (and,
taken to the extreme, would probably lead on to full-scale algebraic
geometry, schemes and all. For example, if you are interested in
functions f(x,y) on the circle x^2+y^2=1, then x/(1-y)=(1+y)/x; the
first expression is "defined" except at (0,1), while the second is
defined except at either (0,1) and (0,-1). There are examples where
no one expression gives you something which is "defined" in the naive
sense everywhere the function is defined.
What this shows is that there is no magic simple solution which will
work and keep everyone happy in all such situations. I think that
cancelling common factors from a fraction is perfectly sensible, even
though it enlarges the domain of definition of the functions. So I am
happy with a computer algebra system simplifying (x^2-1)/(x-1) to x+1.
On the other hand, I know from teaching experience that there are
situations where one would want to keep the two separate.
John
calc...@aol.com
only works if I have mathematica installed.
What I'm wondering is if I can import a mathmatica notebook into sage?
We used to have mathematica at my school and I remember using some very
nice mathematica notebooks by Jerry Uhl (University of Illinois?) that
served as workbooks for teaching calculus. Can I use these notebooks
with sage?
Also, I see that sage uses lots of great FOSS math apps. One I don't
see, and wonder why its not included, is Octave which would give MATLAB
functionality to sage. I'm wondering why Octave is not part of sage?
I thought sage was to be an alternative to Magma, Mathematica and
MATLAB.
TIA,
AJG
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher and Professor
Applied Math and Comp Sci
William Stein
>
> Hi, I see that sage can call mathematica functions - I suppose that
> only works if I have mathematica installed.
>
> What I'm wondering is if I can import a mathmatica notebook into sage?
> We used to have mathematica at my school and I remember using some very
> nice mathematica notebooks by Jerry Uhl (University of Illinois?) that
> served as workbooks for teaching calculus. Can I use these notebooks
> with sage?
No.
> Also, I see that sage uses lots of great FOSS math apps. One I don't
> see, and wonder why its not included, is Octave which would give MATLAB
> functionality to sage. I'm wondering why Octave is not part of sage?
> I thought sage was to be an alternative to Magma, Mathematica and
> MATLAB.
1. Sage includes numpy and scipy, which are native Python libraries
that provide most MATLAB functionality to Sage. See, e.g.,
http://www.scipy.org/NumPy_for_Matlab_Users
To include Octave as well would be a huge duplication of
functionality. (Sage also includes GSL -- the Gnu Scientific Library
-- which again would overlap a lot with Octave for functionality.)
2. Octave is very time consuming to build from source, since it is a
large C++ program.
3. Octave as a binary is very easy to install on any modern system, so
there is little point in including it in Sage, since people can easily
just install it. There is a Sage/Octave interface, so you can use
Octave from Sage.
4. Octave is licensed GPLv3, so we can't include it with Sage anyways.
-- William
Tim Lahey
On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:35 PM, calc...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi, I see that sage can call mathematica functions - I suppose that
> only works if I have mathematica installed.
>
> What I'm wondering is if I can import a mathmatica notebook into sage?
> We used to have mathematica at my school and I remember using some
> very
> nice mathematica notebooks by Jerry Uhl (University of Illinois?) that
> served as workbooks for teaching calculus. Can I use these notebooks
> with sage?
>
You could display the notebooks with Mathematica Player and if you want
to do more with them, try and convert them to Sage.
As for Octave, unless there is something specific, I highly recommend
Numpy and SciPy like William stated.
Cheers,
Tim.
---
Tim Lahey
PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering
University of Waterloo
http://www.linkedin.com/in/timlahey
mabshoff
On Jan 3, 4:18 pm, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu>
wrote:
and it is a blocker for 3.3.
Cheers,
Michael
Calc...@aol.com
You could display the notebooks with Mathematica Player and if you want
to do more with them, try and convert them to Sage.
AJG
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher & Professor
Applied Math, Physics & CS
Baldwin HS & Nassau CC
http://calcpage.tripod.com
SFFBCLUB: Science Fact & Fiction Book CLUB
Search EBay for "ti active"
Search Ebay for "knoppix slax"
Search EBay for "knoppix quantian"
Search EBay for "knoppix manual"
Search EBay for "fractal art signed numbered"
CISTHETA: The OpenMosix Linux Cluster
http://cistheta2007.deviantart.com
YOUTUBE: APCS Instructional Videos
http://www.youtube.com/cistheta2007
CENTAURI: APCS ftpSite
ftp://centauri.baldwinschools.net
ftp://65.254.7.10
William Stein
> In a message dated 1/4/2009 10:13:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> tim....@gmail.com writes:
>
> You could display the notebooks with Mathematica Player and if you want
> to do more with them, try and convert them to Sage.
>
> Thanx for the suggestion. Mathematica Player is an alternative, however,
> these are supposed to be interactive worksheets. I suppose my question is,
> how do I go about converting Mathematica Notebooks into Sage Notebooks?
>
mathematica notebooks as inspiration. The Sage language and
mathematica languages (and capabilities) are distinct.