Something like Mathematica's `Interact`?

[ram.r...@gmail.com]

Is there something in Sage like Mathematica's `Interact`? For example,
I want to have a graph, and a slider, and when I move the slider, it
makes some change to the graph in real-time.

Possible?

[Ajay Rawat]

dear Ram

Follow the link http://wiki.sagemath.org/interact .........I hope it answer your queries.

--
To post to this group, send email to sage-s...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

--
Ajay Rawat
Kalpakkam, IGCAR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Save Himalayas....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jason Grout]

Yes, this is one of the great features of Sage! We call them
"Interacts". Here is an example of code for a notebook cell:

@interact
def myplot(c=slider(0,3)):
show(plot(sin(c*x), (x, -5, 5)))


You can also see the webpage that was pointed out in another message:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/interact for lots more examples.

Thanks,

Jason



--
Jason Grout

[cool-RR]

Yes, this is one of the great features of Sage!  We call them
"Interacts".  Here is an example of code for a notebook cell:

I checked out the examples, looking great!

Is there also an option to change things not by form elements, but by other actions like mouse dragging? For example rotating a 3D Plot or moving around items?

[Jason Grout]

Yes! Try doing this:

var('x,y')
plot3d(x^2*cos(y), (x,-4,4),(y,-4,4))

and you will get a 3d plot. You might try going through the website
pages talking about features in Sage, like:

http://sagemath.org/tour.html

http://sagemath.org/tour-graphics.html

http://sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/plot/plot3d/parametric_plot3d.html

http://wiki.sagemath.org/pics

[Simon King]

Hi!

If I am not mistaken, Mathematica calls it "manipulate", while
"interact" is Sage's brand. Sorry if I got this wrong.

Admittedly my memory for those things is not good, but I think I
remember that Sage had that feature before Mathematica. In that case,
let us hope that Sage does not end like the inventors of the
telephone, Philipp Reis (first public demonstration of a phone link in
1861) and Antonio Meucci (first presentation of a device in 1860
[without a phone link] and first patent application in 1871 [but
running out of money, so, his caveat expired])...

On 21 Nov., 09:06, cool-RR <cool...@cool-rr.com> wrote:
...

> Is there also an option to change things not by form elements, but by other
> actions like mouse dragging? For example rotating a 3D Plot or moving around
> items?

Dragging 3D plots with the mouse is standard in Sage.

If you create a 3D graphics object and display it then by default it
is shown by "JMol". Interestingly, it was developed by
biochemistrists, for showing large molecules. But it can be used more
general. And JMol provides the mouse-drag feature.

In some cases, you would use a different way of showing a 3D object,
namely using a ray tracer. This would produce a static picture, but it
is only used if you want it. See the relevant pages in the manual.

Best regards,
Simon

[Jason Grout]

Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> If I am not mistaken, Mathematica calls it "manipulate", while
> "interact" is Sage's brand. Sorry if I got this wrong.
>
> Admittedly my memory for those things is not good, but I think I
> remember that Sage had that feature before Mathematica. In that case,
> let us hope that Sage does not end like the inventors of the
> telephone, Philipp Reis (first public demonstration of a phone link in
> 1861) and Antonio Meucci (first presentation of a device in 1860
> [without a phone link] and first patent application in 1871 [but
> running out of money, so, his caveat expired])...
>

Actually, Mathematica had Manipulate before Sage had interacts.

Both were after Enthought Traits (which provides similar functionality
on a more general level), GLUI (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~rademach/glui/)
and other various implementations of dynamic controls that automatically
update variable values.

[William Stein]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Simon King <simon...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> If I am not mistaken, Mathematica calls it "manipulate", while
> "interact" is Sage's brand. Sorry if  I got this wrong.

Correct. Mathematica has a command "Manipulate" that is similar to
Sage's @interact decorator. I made up the name "interact" because
it more clearly expresses the intent, and sounds less sinister than
"manipulate".

> Admittedly my memory for those things is not good, but I think I
> remember that Sage had that feature before Mathematica. In that case,
> let us hope that Sage does not end like the inventors of the
> telephone, Philipp Reis (first public demonstration of a phone link in
> 1861) and Antonio Meucci (first presentation of a device in 1860
> [without a phone link] and first patent application in 1871 [but
> running out of money, so, his caveat expired])...

I would say that Enthought was a real pioneer in this feature with
their "Traits" system long, long before either Mathematica or Sage had
this capability. So maybe the chronology is:

2002 (??): Enthought traites, which makes it really easy to make
interactive gui's to manipulate data/python code -- this is a core
(but open source) technology that Enthought developed as part of their
business model.

2006 (?): Mathematica's Manipulate is introduced, I think in
Mathematica 6. It's declared by Wolfram to be the most important
innovation since the wheel.

2007: We had a joint Sage days at Enthought, in which there were
several excellent talks by Enthought'ers about how Traits works and
what it is. Seeing this, I coded with little sleep for a week, and
wrote Sage's @interact. This has been subsequently polished by Igor
Tolkov, Jason Grout, and many other people.

I want to emphasize that Sage's @interact owes something to
Mathematica's Manipulate, but a lot more to Enthought's Traits. I had
tried to do something like Mathematica's manipulate before that Sage
days, but just couldn't figure out how to do it; however, when I
learned all about Traits suddenly the solution was clear.

William

>
> On 21 Nov., 09:06, cool-RR <cool...@cool-rr.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Is there also an option to change things not by form elements, but by other
>> actions like mouse dragging? For example rotating a 3D Plot or moving around
>> items?
>
> Dragging 3D plots with the mouse is standard in Sage.
>
> If you create a 3D graphics object and display it then by default it
> is shown by "JMol". Interestingly, it was developed by
> biochemistrists, for showing large molecules. But it can be used more
> general. And JMol provides the mouse-drag feature.
>
> In some cases, you would use a different way of showing a 3D object,
> namely using a ray tracer. This would produce a static picture, but it
> is only used if you want it. See the relevant pages in the manual.
>
> Best regards,
> Simon
>

> --
> To post to this group, send email to sage-s...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
> URL: http://www.sagemath.org



--

William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org

[Simon King]

Dear William,

On 21 Nov., 10:19, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> I would say that Enthought was a real pioneer in this feature with
> their "Traits" system long, long before either Mathematica or Sage had
> this capability.    So maybe the chronology is:
>
>    2002 (??): Enthought traites, which makes it really easy to make
> interactive gui's to manipulate data/python code -- this is a core
> (but open source) technology that Enthought developed as part of their
> business model.
>
>    2006 (?): Mathematica's Manipulate is introduced, I think in
> Mathematica 6.   It's declared by Wolfram to be the most important
> innovation since the wheel.
>
>    2007: We had a joint Sage days at Enthought, in which there were
> several excellent talks by Enthought'ers about how Traits works and
> what it is.  Seeing this, I coded with little sleep for a week, and
> wrote Sage's @interact.   This has been subsequently polished by Igor
> Tolkov, Jason Grout, and many other people.

Thank you for the clarification!

But then I wonder why Ram, the original poster, referred to
Mathematica's manipulate as "Mathematica's interact". Can you tell us
why?

If this were all based on manipulations of Wolfram (e.g., Mathematica
occasionally referring to its feature as "interact" until the whole
world believes they came up with that name, and Wolfram not giving
credits to Enthought), then I would really fear that the telephone
story repeats (e.g. Bell using Meucci's notes and studying Reis'
device without crediting them, and the word "telephone" is due to
Reis).

There was a question in the Sage Survey about what to do with $10^6. I
really think those brand name / trademark / patent / ... things would
be worth the money!

Cheers,
Simon

[Jason Grout]

William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Simon King <simon...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> If I am not mistaken, Mathematica calls it "manipulate", while
>> "interact" is Sage's brand. Sorry if I got this wrong.
>
> Correct. Mathematica has a command "Manipulate" that is similar to
> Sage's @interact decorator. I made up the name "interact" because
> it more clearly expresses the intent, and sounds less sinister than
> "manipulate".
>
>> Admittedly my memory for those things is not good, but I think I
>> remember that Sage had that feature before Mathematica. In that case,
>> let us hope that Sage does not end like the inventors of the
>> telephone, Philipp Reis (first public demonstration of a phone link in
>> 1861) and Antonio Meucci (first presentation of a device in 1860
>> [without a phone link] and first patent application in 1871 [but
>> running out of money, so, his caveat expired])...
>
> I would say that Enthought was a real pioneer in this feature with
> their "Traits" system long, long before either Mathematica or Sage had
> this capability. So maybe the chronology is:
>

I would put things like the GLUI library here (1999; see
http://glui.sourceforge.net/). Certainly, the idea of controls linked
up to "live" variables happened before 1999 as well.

> 2002 (??): Enthought traites, which makes it really easy to make
> interactive gui's to manipulate data/python code -- this is a core
> (but open source) technology that Enthought developed as part of their
> business model.
>
> 2006 (?): Mathematica's Manipulate is introduced, I think in
> Mathematica 6. It's declared by Wolfram to be the most important
> innovation since the wheel.
>
> 2007: We had a joint Sage days at Enthought, in which there were
> several excellent talks by Enthought'ers about how Traits works and
> what it is. Seeing this, I coded with little sleep for a week, and
> wrote Sage's @interact. This has been subsequently polished by Igor
> Tolkov, Jason Grout, and many other people.
>
> I want to emphasize that Sage's @interact owes something to
> Mathematica's Manipulate, but a lot more to Enthought's Traits. I had
> tried to do something like Mathematica's manipulate before that Sage
> days, but just couldn't figure out how to do it; however, when I
> learned all about Traits suddenly the solution was clear.
>

--
Jason Grout

[William Stein]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Simon King <simon...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
> Dear William,
>
> On 21 Nov., 10:19, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> I would say that Enthought was a real pioneer in this feature with
>> their "Traits" system long, long before either Mathematica or Sage had
>> this capability.    So maybe the chronology is:
>>
>>    2002 (??): Enthought traites, which makes it really easy to make
>> interactive gui's to manipulate data/python code -- this is a core
>> (but open source) technology that Enthought developed as part of their
>> business model.
>>
>>    2006 (?): Mathematica's Manipulate is introduced, I think in
>> Mathematica 6.   It's declared by Wolfram to be the most important
>> innovation since the wheel.
>>
>>    2007: We had a joint Sage days at Enthought, in which there were
>> several excellent talks by Enthought'ers about how Traits works and
>> what it is.  Seeing this, I coded with little sleep for a week, and
>> wrote Sage's @interact.   This has been subsequently polished by Igor
>> Tolkov, Jason Grout, and many other people.
>
> Thank you for the clarification!
>
> But then I wonder why Ram, the original poster, referred to
> Mathematica's manipulate as "Mathematica's interact". Can you tell us
> why?

I can't.

>
> If this were all based on manipulations of Wolfram (e.g., Mathematica
> occasionally referring to its feature as "interact" until the whole
> world believes they came up with that name, and Wolfram not  giving
> credits to Enthought), then I would really fear that the telephone
> story repeats (e.g. Bell using Meucci's notes and studying Reis'
> device without crediting them, and the word "telephone" is due to
> Reis).
>
> There was a question in the Sage Survey about what to do with $10^6. I
> really think those brand name / trademark / patent / ... things would
> be worth the money!

I don't really care. I just want everybody to have first rate
mathematics software that satisfies their needs. I'm against
software patents, since I do *not* think they contribute to this goal,
and in fact do quite the opposite.

William

[William Stein]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Jason Grout
<jason...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Simon King <simon...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> If I am not mistaken, Mathematica calls it "manipulate", while
>>> "interact" is Sage's brand. Sorry if  I got this wrong.
>>
>> Correct.   Mathematica has a command "Manipulate" that is similar to
>> Sage's @interact decorator.    I made up the name "interact" because
>> it more clearly expresses the intent, and sounds less sinister than
>> "manipulate".
>>
>>> Admittedly my memory for those things is not good, but I think I
>>> remember that Sage had that feature before Mathematica. In that case,
>>> let us hope that Sage does not end like the inventors of the
>>> telephone, Philipp Reis (first public demonstration of a phone link in
>>> 1861) and Antonio Meucci (first presentation of a device in 1860
>>> [without a phone link] and first patent application in 1871 [but
>>> running out of money, so, his caveat expired])...
>>
>> I would say that Enthought was a real pioneer in this feature with
>> their "Traits" system long, long before either Mathematica or Sage had
>> this capability.    So maybe the chronology is:
>>
>
> I would put things like the GLUI library here (1999; see
> http://glui.sourceforge.net/).  Certainly, the idea of controls linked
> up to "live" variables happened before 1999 as well.

Well that is much older than 1999... e.g., I think even Visual Basic
has this sort of capability, in some nice sense. In my mind, a
critical thing is doing this in a math software system, in the context
of "exploring" mathematical expressions (and code blocks).

William

[Simon King]

Hi!

On 21 Nov., 11:07, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> > But then I wonder why Ram, the original poster, referred to
> > Mathematica's manipulate as "Mathematica's interact". Can you tell us
> > why?
>
> I can't.

Sorry, that question was of course addressed to the original poster.

Cheers,
Simon

[cool-RR]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Simon King <simon...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:

Hi!

On 21 Nov., 11:07, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> > But then I wonder why Ram, the original poster, referred to
> > Mathematica's manipulate as "Mathematica's interact". Can you tell us
> > why?

Funny, I'm not sure how that came to me. I looked in Mathematica now, and I think that what I had in mind was actually `Dynamic`, not `Manipulate`. (P.S. Even now when writing this I accidentally typed "Interact" instead of "Manipulate".)

Thanks for the help everyone.

Ram.

[ram.r...@gmail.com]

Another thing: Where in the source tree is the definition of interact?

On Nov 21, 3:13 pm, cool-RR <cool...@cool-rr.com> wrote:

[William Stein]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:54 AM, ram.r...@gmail.com
<ram.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another thing: Where in the source tree is the definition of interact?
>

Type

sage: interact??

to find out :-) (See the File: line in the output)

[Simon King]

Hi William!

On 21 Nov., 11:07, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> > There was a question in the Sage Survey about what to do with $10^6. I
> > really think those brand name / trademark / patent / ... things would
> > be worth the money!
>
> I don't really care.  I just want everybody to have first rate
> mathematics software that satisfies their needs.   I'm against
> software patents, since I do *not* think they contribute to this goal,
> and in fact do quite the opposite.

Agreed. And in fact I did not suggest to get patents for Sage.

However, when I recently helped my son in a school project on the
invention of the telephone, I was on the one hand amazed how different
the story is told in the German and in the English Wikipedia.

And on the other hand I was shocked that, at least according to German
Wikipedia, Bell used his patent to prevent other people from further
developing the telephone -- even the people who presented the
telephone in the USA several years before Bell had a working model on
his own.

Now translate it to 2009. I don't know how the law is today. My
question:
Would it be possible for (just as an example) Wolfram to get patents
for known algorithms *and* forbid other people to further develop
these algorithms? Would it be possible to get a patent on the
manipulate/interact feature, even though it was openly available since
at least 2002 or even <1999?

If this were the case, then wouldn't it be worth to spend some money?
-- Not to get a patent, but in order to prevent people from getting a
patent who don't deserve it!

Cheers,
Simon

[cool-RR]

Type

 sage: interact??

to find out :-)  (See the File: line in the output)

I did, but I didn't find that file here:

http://hg.sagemath.org/scripts-main/

Where is sagenb?

[Ajay Rawat]

Where is sagenb?
type.......
sage:notebook()
then press enter

--

To post to this group, send email to sage-s...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

--

[Harald Schilly]

On Nov 21, 3:23 pm, Simon King <simon.k...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
> Would it be possible for (just as an example) Wolfram to get patents
> for known algorithms *and* forbid other people to further develop

> these algorithms? #

To the list of earlier software that is also able to do this, i want
to add R. There is a package that creates Tcl/Tk windows with
sliders ... or there are several of them. I don't remember the names,
but I did interact/manipulate things already many years ago before
there was manipulate.

About patents: don't get confused, but patents mean in the usa
something more general than patents here in europe. That's a very
complicated topic! For example, we both know a word called
"Markenschutz" which describes a certain form factor and a certain
realization of an idea. That's also called patent in the usa.

H

[Harald Schilly]

On Nov 21, 4:30 pm, cool-RR <cool...@cool-rr.com> wrote:
> http://hg.sagemath.org/scripts-main/
>

http://hg.sagemath.org/sage-main/file/5db805d3bdaf/sage/server/notebook/interact.py#l1

[john_perry_usm]

> Admittedly my memory for those things is not good, but I think I
> remember that Sage had that feature before Mathematica. In that case,
> let us hope that Sage does not end like the inventors of the
> telephone, Philipp Reis (first public demonstration of a phone link in
> 1861) and Antonio Meucci (first presentation of a device in 1860
> [without a phone link] and first patent application in 1871 [but
> running out of money, so, his caveat expired])...

IIRC Maple was showing off Maplets long before Sage existed. Maplets
date from Maple 7, which was released in 2001. I planned to use them
as part of my standard talk when looking for work in 2005, but I think
I always forgot to use them (or ran out of time).

regards
john perry

[William Stein]

I have the impression that Maplets are somewhat different than
Mathematica's Manipulate and Sage's @interact. I'm not so familiar
with them -- I read about them online just now, and it seems like they
are basically a Maple interface to a subset of the Java Swing GUI API.
I *just* tried to use one from the official Maple website, and it
promptly completely crashed Firefox (latest version, on OS X).
Luckily gmail saved my message so I didn't loose this email!

Anyway, John, I assume you've used Maplets a lot. Are they to you
very similar to @interact and Manipulate?

The idea of having a graphical user interface on a math software
system is old. I worked for a year writing MATLAB gui code back in
1997.

William

[john_perry_usm]

> Now translate it to 2009. I don't  know how the law is today. My
> question:
> Would it be possible for (just as an example) Wolfram to get patents
> for known algorithms *and* forbid other people to further develop
> these algorithms? Would it be possible to get a patent on the
> manipulate/interact feature, even though it was openly available since
> at least 2002 or even <1999?

My understanding is that you can't patent prior art. So even if
Wolfram *succeeded* in patenting algorithms that are well-known, any
suits they might file based on said patents would be dismissed the
moment it was shown that they were based on prior art.

This assumes that the defendant could afford to put up the minimal
defense necessary, and that they would put up the minimal defense
necessary. Such assumptions do not always bear out in practice; some
companies submit immediately and pay out. One example I know is
Commodore Amiga's paying a royalty for the XOR patent. Supposedly,
this was one Commodore eventually folded: they owed on the patent, and
a judge prohibited their importing new products to sell until they
paid. Ironically, the XOR patent was (later) reviewed and revoked.

You also can't patent "trivial" modifications to prior art. The
modification has to be truly non-obvious. The general consensus among
almost everything I've read, however, is that the US Patent Office has
given up trying to figure out whether software patent applications are
for truly novel modifications, and has decided to let the courts sort
it out. As someone else said, this is the reason for a lot of patent
applications: not to sue others frivolously, but to protect oneself
from frivolous suits.

IANAL, also IANAH, so I invite correction.

regards
john perry

[William Stein]

Let's get real about this math software patent discussion.
Mathematica, Magma, and Maple have no software patents. Matlab, on
the other hand...

This link gives *97* (!) registered patents by Mathworks (makers of MATLAB):

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=mathworks&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

(click next to see 51-97). They have patents like:

* System and method for distributing system tests in parallel
computing environments
* Programming language type system with automatic conversions
* Function values in computer programming languages having dynamic
types and overloading

In contrast, Wolfram Research has exactly one patent: "Method and
system for generating signaling tone sequences" (see
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22wolfram+research%22.ASNM.&OS=AN/)

Maple has no software patents.

Let's put Mathworks out of business.

-- William

[Dr. David Kirkby]

William Stein wrote:

> Let's get real about this math software patent discussion.
> Mathematica, Magma, and Maple have no software patents. Matlab, on
> the other hand...
>
> This link gives *97* (!) registered patents by Mathworks (makers of MATLAB):
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=mathworks&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
>
> (click next to see 51-97). They have patents like:
>
> * System and method for distributing system tests in parallel
> computing environments
> * Programming language type system with automatic conversions
> * Function values in computer programming languages having dynamic
> types and overloading
>
> In contrast, Wolfram Research has exactly one patent: "Method and
> system for generating signaling tone sequences" (see
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22wolfram+research%22.ASNM.&OS=AN/)
>
> Maple has no software patents.
>
> Let's put Mathworks out of business.
>
> -- William
>

I believe some companies try to impress others by having a large number of
patents. I've never done any analysis of it myself, but I understand from others
that Japanese companies in particular like to do this. It impresses potential
customers and potential investors.

[Harald Schilly]

On Nov 21, 11:11 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Matlab, on the other hand...

... for viewing data? i can't read the text because i get nervous/fall
asleep, but look at those silly images:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hUPJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract

h

[Simon King]

Hi Harald!

Frightening, isn't it? And another patent looks like a patent on
garbage collection.

Cheers,
Simon

[Jason Grout]

Interestingly, though they've been around since the early 80s, all of
these patents were filed between 2001 and 2007.

Jason



--
Jason Grout

[cool-RR]

Thanks. 

[Tim Joseph Dumol]

This one is for the old notebook. The one actually in use is http://sage.math.washington.edu:8100/file/1ad04c3b2153/sagenb/notebook/interact.py. I don't believe there are any changes aside from s/sage/sagenb/g, though.

Thanks. 

--
To post to this group, send email to sage-s...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

- Tim Joseph Dumol <tim (at) timdumol (dot) com>
http://timdumol.com

[mark mcclure]

On Nov 21, 5:11 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's get real about this math software patent discussion.
> Mathematica, Magma, and Maple have no software patents.  
> Matlab, on the other hand...
> This link gives *97* (!) registered patents by Mathworks (makers of MATLAB):

> ...

> Let's put Mathworks out of business.

This seems to me to be an overly harsh statement towards a
generally respectable company. While no company is perfect,
The Mathworks has long been a huge supporter of some of the
most fundamental and important open source, mathematical
software. Cleve Moler, who founded The Mathworks, was one
of the primary authors of two important and freely
distributable computational libraries in the 1970s: Linpack
(the predecessor to Lapack) and Eispack. While no member of
The Mathworks is listed as an author of Lapack, the company
plays an active role in its development. I believe the same
is true of Blas. Moler has long been on the directory board
of Netlib, which is certainly the largest repository of
freely available software for numerical analysis in
existence, and a number of other Mathworks employees are
involved with Netlib as well.

Mark McClure

[Nasser Abbasi]

On Nov 21, 3:53 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have the impression that Maplets are somewhat different than
> Mathematica's Manipulate and Sage's @interact.  I'm not so familiar
> with them -- I read about them online just now, and it seems like they
> are basically a Maple interface to a subset of the Java Swing GUI API.
>   I *just* tried to use one from the official Maple website, and it
> promptly completely crashed Firefox (latest version, on OS X).
> Luckily gmail saved my message so I didn't loose this email!
>

There is also Google's Mapplets, not to be confused with Maple Maplets

http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/mapplets/
http://www.adeptscience.co.uk/products/mathsim/maple/primes/maplets.html

Wonder if MapleSoft can bring a lawsuit against google for name
infringement here?
This is one way Maplesoft can make few easy millions of dollars? :)

Notice when searching for "maple maplets", google suggests a name
correction to "mapplets". Very smart.

I do not dare touch a Maple maplet any more, since every time I tried,
all sort of Java errors popup in my browser, many times freezing it or
worst. I never did like Maplets myself. I need to try sage interact
more sometime. But I do like Mathematica Manipulate. It is complicated
and it takes time to learn.

>
> William

--Nasser

[Joshua Marshall Moore]

I've downloaded sagemath specifically so I could play with interact. Unfortunately, none of the example seem to work in SageMath 7.4, and the documentation appears completely missing. Would someone mind explaining how interact is intended to be used? Also, I'm a Software Engineer, and could probably wip up something if it's truly missing and I understood the source code. Anyone willing to walk me through SageMath's source on the example of interact? 

On Friday, November 20, 2009 at 11:41:41 PM UTC-8, ram.r...@gmail.com wrote:

Is there something in Sage like Mathematica's `Interact`? For example,
I want to have a graph, and a slider, and when I move the slider, it
makes some change to the graph in real-time.

Possible?

[William Stein]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Joshua Marshall Moore
<thwee.abacada...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've downloaded sagemath specifically so I could play with interact.
> Unfortunately, none of the example seem to work in SageMath 7.4,

I wrote Sage's interact somewhat inspired by Mathematica's Manipulate
and Enthought traits at Sage Days 8 (see [1]) in 2008, prodded by
Jason Grout explaining that lack of Manipulate was a key obstruction
to people switching from Mathematica to Sage. People decided to
switch Sage's default notebook environment from sagenb to Jupyter
before completely and properly fully re-implementing interact for
Jupyter, so interact doesn't work in Jupyter (though Jason wrote
something called "widgets" for Jupyter). In the meantime, you can
(probably?) use interact by using the older sagenb interface (type
"sage -h" to figure out how; it should still be in sage...), or by
using SageMathCloud sage worksheets [2]. You can also track progress
on porting interact to Jupyter at [3], though it looks like nobody has
touched that in several months.

[1] https://wiki.sagemath.org/days8
[2] https://cloud.sagemath.com
[3] https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21267

> code. Anyone willing to walk me through SageMath's source on the example of
> interact?



>
>
> On Friday, November 20, 2009 at 11:41:41 PM UTC-8, ram.r...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Is there something in Sage like Mathematica's `Interact`? For example,
>> I want to have a graph, and a slider, and when I move the slider, it
>> makes some change to the graph in real-time.
>>
>> Possible?
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-s...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
William (http://wstein.org)

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2016-12-07 04:45, William Stein wrote:
> You can also track progress
> on porting interact to Jupyter at [3], though it looks like nobody has
> touched that in several months.

For the record, the main obstacle here is the release of ipywidgets 6
(currently in beta!). I don't want to rely on git master versions of
packages anymore.

[help]

Jason says: "Jason Grout @jasongrout 12:27

That's been what I've been working on a lot recently

I just fixed the fontSize issue you mention above (at least made it more robust)

and then I'm going back to working on the output widget for the classic notebook

I also prioritized jdmeyer's remaining Sage compatibility issues for the widgets 6.0 release "

https://gitter.im/jupyter/jupyter

[kcrisman]

I wrote Sage's interact somewhat inspired by Mathematica's Manipulate
and Enthought traits at Sage Days 8 (see [1]) in 2008, prodded by
Jason Grout explaining that lack of Manipulate was a key obstruction
to people switching from Mathematica to Sage.    People decided to
switch Sage's default notebook environment from sagenb to Jupyter
before completely and properly fully re-implementing interact for
Jupyter, so interact doesn't work in Jupyter (though Jason wrote
something called "widgets" for Jupyter).    In the meantime, you can
(probably?) use interact by using the older sagenb interface (type
"sage -h" to figure out how; it should still be in sage...), or by

Also for the record, the only place the *default* notebook has changed is on the virtual machine for Windows; the default on Linux and Mac should still be the old notebook, which should support these fully.  The Sage Cell server and Sage Math Cloud both support supersets of this syntax (e.g. nested interacts) but apparently in slightly different ways.

- kcrisman

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

Still for the record, the current ipywidgets can be used in the current Jupyter notebook (see also the rest of the thread, which gives useful advice).

Note that, since ipywidgets does not know anything about Sage types, your code should use Python types for the sliders (and convert accordingly to Sage types if you need so).

Note also that your code will run fine in the Jupyter notebook, but probably not in the old Sage notebook (I didn't test that). The integration of ipywidgets 6 should allow to write "universal" code.

HTH,

--
Emmanuel Charpentier