803 views

Skip to first unread message

Jun 3, 2009, 10:51:08 AM6/3/09

to sage-support

Dear sage-support group,

I am completely new to computer algebra systems and to computer

programming, and I hope you'll indulge the following beginner's

question. I was wondering if there is a simple way to create a

polynomial of degree d in x and y with symbolic coefficients in Sage.

Here is what I mean: if I were at the board in class, I might write

(in LaTeX transcription) something like

P(x,y) = \sum_{i+j\leq d} a_{ij} x^i y^j,

which I would view as an element of \mathbf{Z}[a_{ij},x,y]. I might

then impose some linear conditions on the a_{ij} by insisting that P

(x_t,y_t) = 0 for a list of points

(x_1,y_1), (x_2,y_2), ... .

Finally, I might solve the resulting system of linear equations.

How would you recommend that I set up something like the a_{ij} and P

(x,y) in Sage? In order to make the question more definite, I

illustrate it with an example that I took from a lecture of Doron

Zeilberger on experimental mathematics. He proposed the question of

finding a polynomial of degree d in x and y that vanishes when x and y

are specialized to consecutive Fibonacci numbers. The lines below are

my attempt at a Sage version of his suggested computer search for a

likely solution (originally written in Maple). The program should take

the degree d as an input and then provide a parameterized family of

polynomials of degree d that are likely candidates.

Here is what I came up with, after an enlightening afternoon of

studying computer manuals:

d = 4

e = d+1

L = []

M = []

for i in range(e):

for j in range(e-i):

L.append('a_%s_%s' %(i,j))

M.append([i,j])

V = var(' '.join(L))

P = sum(V[j]*x^(M[j][0])*y^(M[j][1]) for j in range(len(L)))

E = [P(x=fibonacci(n),y=fibonacci(n+1)) for n in range(1,len(V)+6)]

P.substitute(solve(E,V,solution_dict = True)[0])

I could not figure out how to create and reference the variables a_

{ij} conveniently, and so I ended up with the strange lists V and M

above. Even though I got my polynomial P and solved the original

problem to my satisfaction, I still don't think I know how I would

have Sage do something like sum the a_{i.i+1} for 2i+1<=d. Is there a

better way to do this sort of thing?

Thanks for your help and indulgence,

James Parson

I am completely new to computer algebra systems and to computer

programming, and I hope you'll indulge the following beginner's

question. I was wondering if there is a simple way to create a

polynomial of degree d in x and y with symbolic coefficients in Sage.

Here is what I mean: if I were at the board in class, I might write

(in LaTeX transcription) something like

P(x,y) = \sum_{i+j\leq d} a_{ij} x^i y^j,

which I would view as an element of \mathbf{Z}[a_{ij},x,y]. I might

then impose some linear conditions on the a_{ij} by insisting that P

(x_t,y_t) = 0 for a list of points

(x_1,y_1), (x_2,y_2), ... .

Finally, I might solve the resulting system of linear equations.

How would you recommend that I set up something like the a_{ij} and P

(x,y) in Sage? In order to make the question more definite, I

illustrate it with an example that I took from a lecture of Doron

Zeilberger on experimental mathematics. He proposed the question of

finding a polynomial of degree d in x and y that vanishes when x and y

are specialized to consecutive Fibonacci numbers. The lines below are

my attempt at a Sage version of his suggested computer search for a

likely solution (originally written in Maple). The program should take

the degree d as an input and then provide a parameterized family of

polynomials of degree d that are likely candidates.

Here is what I came up with, after an enlightening afternoon of

studying computer manuals:

d = 4

e = d+1

L = []

M = []

for i in range(e):

for j in range(e-i):

L.append('a_%s_%s' %(i,j))

M.append([i,j])

V = var(' '.join(L))

P = sum(V[j]*x^(M[j][0])*y^(M[j][1]) for j in range(len(L)))

E = [P(x=fibonacci(n),y=fibonacci(n+1)) for n in range(1,len(V)+6)]

P.substitute(solve(E,V,solution_dict = True)[0])

I could not figure out how to create and reference the variables a_

{ij} conveniently, and so I ended up with the strange lists V and M

above. Even though I got my polynomial P and solved the original

problem to my satisfaction, I still don't think I know how I would

have Sage do something like sum the a_{i.i+1} for 2i+1<=d. Is there a

better way to do this sort of thing?

Thanks for your help and indulgence,

James Parson

Jun 3, 2009, 1:32:40 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

I'm not sure if this helps, but you can create a polynomial

of the type you want a bit simpler:

sage: var("x,y")

(x, y)

sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(4))

sage: sum([var("a"+str(i)+str(j))*x^i*y^j for i,j in Inds])

a43*x^4*y^3 + a33*x^3*y^3 + a42*x^4*y^2 + a23*x^2*y^3 + a32*x^3*y^2 +

a41*x^4*y + a13*x*y^3 + a22*x^2*y^2 + a31*x^3*y + a40*x^4 + a03*y^3 +

a12*x*y^2 + a21*x^2*y + a30*x^3 + a02*y^2 + a11*x*y + a20*x^2 + a01*y

+ a10*x + a00

Now you can reference them on the fly like this:

sage: eval("a"+str(3)+str(2))

a32

of the type you want a bit simpler:

sage: var("x,y")

(x, y)

sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(4))

sage: sum([var("a"+str(i)+str(j))*x^i*y^j for i,j in Inds])

a43*x^4*y^3 + a33*x^3*y^3 + a42*x^4*y^2 + a23*x^2*y^3 + a32*x^3*y^2 +

a41*x^4*y + a13*x*y^3 + a22*x^2*y^2 + a31*x^3*y + a40*x^4 + a03*y^3 +

a12*x*y^2 + a21*x^2*y + a30*x^3 + a02*y^2 + a11*x*y + a20*x^2 + a01*y

+ a10*x + a00

Now you can reference them on the fly like this:

sage: eval("a"+str(3)+str(2))

a32

Jun 3, 2009, 2:45:31 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

sage: a = var('a')

sage: a[0]

a_0

sage: latex(a[1,2])

a_{1,2}

- Robert

think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

sage: a = var('a')

sage: a[0]

a_0

sage: latex(a[1,2])

a_{1,2}

- Robert

Jun 3, 2009, 2:53:26 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw

<robe...@math.washington.edu> wrote:

>

> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

>

> sage: a = var('a')

> sage: a[0]

> a_0

> sage: latex(a[1,2])

> a_{1,2}

<robe...@math.washington.edu> wrote:

>

> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

>

> sage: a = var('a')

> sage: a[0]

> a_0

> sage: latex(a[1,2])

> a_{1,2}

That's a pretty wild and crazy idea. Cool. Does any other math

software do that?

Are there any obvious gotcha's?

William

Jun 3, 2009, 3:01:53 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:53 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

>> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

>>

>> sage: a = var('a')

>> sage: a[0]

>> a_0

>> sage: latex(a[1,2])

>> a_{1,2}

>

> That's a pretty wild and crazy idea. Cool. Does any other math

> software do that?

> Are there any obvious gotcha's?

>> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

>> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

>>

>> sage: a = var('a')

>> sage: a[0]

>> a_0

>> sage: latex(a[1,2])

>> a_{1,2}

>

> That's a pretty wild and crazy idea. Cool. Does any other math

> software do that?

> Are there any obvious gotcha's?

I think any system where things are left unevaluated can do something

like this. For example, I know people who use this in Maple to have

polynomials infinitely many variables. We have something like this in

Sage now:

sage: R.<x> = InfinitePolynomialRing(QQ)

sage: x[0] + x[100]

x100 + x0

I would still like to use __getitem__ to return the operands of a

symbolic expression. Since symbols have no operands, these two things

aren't totally incompatible.

--Mike

Jun 3, 2009, 3:08:36 PM6/3/09

to sage-support

On Jun 3, 8:45 pm, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu>

wrote:

a[0:3] == vector([a_0, a_1, a_2, a_3]) # note, also a_3

and probably, the var constructor should also be more intelligent,

i.e. var('a[0:3]') creates all the a_i (and avoids the unindexed 'a'

you would need in your 2-step approach above)

h

wrote:

> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

>

> sage: a = var('a')

> sage: a[0]

> a_0

> sage: latex(a[1,2])

> a_{1,2}

>

I like it, this idea could also be expanded to vectors, like
> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

>

> sage: a = var('a')

> sage: a[0]

> a_0

> sage: latex(a[1,2])

> a_{1,2}

>

a[0:3] == vector([a_0, a_1, a_2, a_3]) # note, also a_3

and probably, the var constructor should also be more intelligent,

i.e. var('a[0:3]') creates all the a_i (and avoids the unindexed 'a'

you would need in your 2-step approach above)

h

Jun 3, 2009, 3:11:35 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

So as far as printing, a[0] would look the same as a0 would look the

same as a_0? Would a[0] actually be the variable a_0 or a0?

Do we ever want to make symbolic expressions indexable? If so, it would

be confusing to have:

(x+1)[0]

have totally different behavior than

(x)[0].

Jason

P.S. It seems like Maple did something like this---Maple experts can

comment on it, though.

--

Jason Grout

Jun 3, 2009, 3:16:38 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

Harald Schilly wrote:

> On Jun 3, 8:45 pm, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu>

> wrote:

>> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

>> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

>>

>> sage: a = var('a')

>> sage: a[0]

>> a_0

>> sage: latex(a[1,2])

>> a_{1,2}

>>

>

> I like it, this idea could also be expanded to vectors, like

> a[0:3] == vector([a_0, a_1, a_2, a_3]) # note, also a_3

> On Jun 3, 8:45 pm, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu>

> wrote:

>> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

>> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

>>

>> sage: a = var('a')

>> sage: a[0]

>> a_0

>> sage: latex(a[1,2])

>> a_{1,2}

>>

>

> I like it, this idea could also be expanded to vectors, like

> a[0:3] == vector([a_0, a_1, a_2, a_3]) # note, also a_3

-1 to the a_3. That goes against all of the slicing conventions in Python.

It is kind of a cool idea, though. I'd like some time to try it out

before committing one way or the other.

What about having a "experiment mode" in Sage that turns on things like

this? Some variable in some module somewhere that people can set to

switch on some experimental behavior so they can test it out and give

feedback. In other words, setting sage.misc.misc.EXPERIMENT_MODE=True

turns it on.

Jason

--

Jason Grout

Jun 3, 2009, 3:27:27 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Jason Grout wrote:

> William Stein wrote:

>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw

>> <robe...@math.washington.edu> wrote:

>>> Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

>>> think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

>>>

>>> sage: a = var('a')

>>> sage: a[0]

>>> a_0

>>> sage: latex(a[1,2])

>>> a_{1,2}

>>

>> That's a pretty wild and crazy idea. Cool. Does any other math

>> software do that?

>> Are there any obvious gotcha's?

>

> So as far as printing, a[0] would look the same as a0 would look the

> same as a_0? Would a[0] actually be the variable a_0 or a0?

I'm not sure. My first intent was that a[0] would actually be a0, but

it's unclear how to format multiple indices (I'd want a[1, 23] != a

[12, 3]). Also, should we support a[i]? Then I'd want a[i].subs(i=5)

== a[5]. What about v[5].subs(v=vector(range(10)))?

> Do we ever want to make symbolic expressions indexable? If so, it

> would

> be confusing to have:

>

> (x+1)[0]

>

> have totally different behavior than

>

> (x)[0].

They're not now. Having both would be confusing. I'd vote for the

latter--if (x+1)[0] worked, would it be the same as (1+x)[0], or (x+1-

x)[0]?

Answering your question about experimental mode, you're talking about

something easier and more permanent than applying a patch from trac?

Would people start depending on it, meaning we can't remove it

without sacrificing backwards compatibility (despite the name

"experimental")?

- Robert

Jun 3, 2009, 4:38:02 PM6/3/09

to sage-support

On Jun 3, 12:16 pm, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote:

> What about having a "experiment mode" in Sage that turns on things like

> this? Some variable in some module somewhere that people can set to

> switch on some experimental behavior so they can test it out and give

> feedback. In other words, setting sage.misc.misc.EXPERIMENT_MODE=True

> turns it on.

It seems better to me to turn individual experimental features on or
> What about having a "experiment mode" in Sage that turns on things like

> this? Some variable in some module somewhere that people can set to

> switch on some experimental behavior so they can test it out and give

> feedback. In other words, setting sage.misc.misc.EXPERIMENT_MODE=True

> turns it on.

off. So what about an argument to var, just like "ns"?

var(a, index=True)

for example. ("index" doesn't sound right to me, but I hope you get

the idea.)

John

Jun 3, 2009, 4:42:23 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

Is this possible?

sage: J = CartesianProduct(range(3),range(4))

sage var(a, index_set = J)

>

> John

>

> >

>

Jun 3, 2009, 5:54:08 PM6/3/09

to sage-support

Thanks to David Joyner for his response to my original question. His

method worked nicely. Incidentally, here is the original Maple code

from the lecture of Doron Zeilberger that I was trying to translate

into Sage:

with(combinat): P:=(d,x,y)->add(add(a[i,j]*x**i*y**j,i=0..d-

j),j=0..d);

V:=d->fseq(seq(a[i,j],i=0..d-j),j=0..d)g;

E:=d->fseq(P(d,fibonacci(n),fibonacci(n+1)),n=1..nops(V(d))+5) g:

Q:=(d,x,y)->subs(solve(E(d),V(d)),P(d,x,y));

These lines feature the sort of indexed variables a[i,j] discussed

above.

(The full lecture from which I took these lines can be found at

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/em.html.)

Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write

a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i

+j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,

so that I could tell Sage about an algebraic group action on the space

of polynomials of degree <=d. For a simpler variant: is there a

convenient way to construct QQ[x_{ij}] with 1\leq i,j\leq n? I am a

overwhelmed with the various ways to construct a polynomial ring, and

so I cannot tell if one of them would be appropriate for this purpose.

I can see how to make a polynomial ring in n^2 variables, but I do not

know how to name them x_{ij}.

Thanks again for your help,

James Parson

method worked nicely. Incidentally, here is the original Maple code

from the lecture of Doron Zeilberger that I was trying to translate

into Sage:

with(combinat): P:=(d,x,y)->add(add(a[i,j]*x**i*y**j,i=0..d-

j),j=0..d);

V:=d->fseq(seq(a[i,j],i=0..d-j),j=0..d)g;

E:=d->fseq(P(d,fibonacci(n),fibonacci(n+1)),n=1..nops(V(d))+5) g:

Q:=(d,x,y)->subs(solve(E(d),V(d)),P(d,x,y));

These lines feature the sort of indexed variables a[i,j] discussed

above.

(The full lecture from which I took these lines can be found at

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/em.html.)

Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write

a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i

+j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,

so that I could tell Sage about an algebraic group action on the space

of polynomials of degree <=d. For a simpler variant: is there a

convenient way to construct QQ[x_{ij}] with 1\leq i,j\leq n? I am a

overwhelmed with the various ways to construct a polynomial ring, and

so I cannot tell if one of them would be appropriate for this purpose.

I can see how to make a polynomial ring in n^2 variables, but I do not

know how to name them x_{ij}.

Thanks again for your help,

James Parson

Jun 3, 2009, 6:25:16 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:54 PM, James Parson <par...@hood.edu> wrote:

>

> Thanks to David Joyner for his response to my original question. His

> method worked nicely. Incidentally, here is the original Maple code

> from the lecture of Doron Zeilberger that I was trying to translate

> into Sage:

BTW I think the more of Zeilberger's stuff that is translated into
>

> Thanks to David Joyner for his response to my original question. His

> method worked nicely. Incidentally, here is the original Maple code

> from the lecture of Doron Zeilberger that I was trying to translate

> into Sage:

Sage the better!

Please consider publishing your translation as a sagemath.org notebook

worksheet.

>

> with(combinat): P:=(d,x,y)->add(add(a[i,j]*x**i*y**j,i=0..d-

> j),j=0..d);

> V:=d->fseq(seq(a[i,j],i=0..d-j),j=0..d)g;

> E:=d->fseq(P(d,fibonacci(n),fibonacci(n+1)),n=1..nops(V(d))+5) g:

> Q:=(d,x,y)->subs(solve(E(d),V(d)),P(d,x,y));

>

> These lines feature the sort of indexed variables a[i,j] discussed

> above.

>

> (The full lecture from which I took these lines can be found at

> http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/em.html.)

>

> Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write

> a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i

> +j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,

sage: vars = ["a"+str(i)+str(j) for i,j in Inds]

sage: PolynomialRing(QQ,25,vars)

Multivariate Polynomial Ring in a00, a01, a02, a03, a04, a10, a11,

a12, a13, a14, a20, a21, a22, a23, a24, a30, a31, a32, a33, a34, a40,

a41, a42, a43, a44 over Rational Field

Jun 3, 2009, 7:43:24 PM6/3/09

to sage-support

>

> > Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write

> > a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i

> > +j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,

>

> sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(5))

> sage: vars = ["a"+str(i)+str(j) for i,j in Inds]

I think it would actually be something like
> > Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write

> > a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i

> > +j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,

>

> sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(5))

> sage: vars = ["a"+str(i)+str(j) for i,j in Inds]

sage: vars = ["a"+str(i)+str(j) for i,j in Inds if i+j<5]

Of course you'd have to change 25 below. Actually, I think the number

of variables is optional, though if you include it you need to

calculate the correct number of them :)

> sage: PolynomialRing(QQ,25,vars)

> Multivariate Polynomial Ring in a00, a01, a02, a03, a04, a10, a11,

> a12, a13, a14, a20, a21, a22, a23, a24, a30, a31, a32, a33, a34, a40,

> a41, a42, a43, a44 over Rational Field

Jun 3, 2009, 8:47:41 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:54 PM, James Parson wrote:

>

> Thanks to David Joyner for his response to my original question. His

> method worked nicely. Incidentally, here is the original Maple code

> from the lecture of Doron Zeilberger that I was trying to translate

> into Sage:

>

> with(combinat): P:=(d,x,y)->add(add(a[i,j]*x**i*y**j,i=0..d-

> j),j=0..d);

> V:=d->fseq(seq(a[i,j],i=0..d-j),j=0..d)g;

> E:=d->fseq(P(d,fibonacci(n),fibonacci(n+1)),n=1..nops(V(d))+5) g:

> Q:=(d,x,y)->subs(solve(E(d),V(d)),P(d,x,y));

>

> These lines feature the sort of indexed variables a[i,j] discussed

> above.

>

> (The full lecture from which I took these lines can be found at

> http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/em.html.)

>

>

> Thanks to David Joyner for his response to my original question. His

> method worked nicely. Incidentally, here is the original Maple code

> from the lecture of Doron Zeilberger that I was trying to translate

> into Sage:

>

> with(combinat): P:=(d,x,y)->add(add(a[i,j]*x**i*y**j,i=0..d-

> j),j=0..d);

> V:=d->fseq(seq(a[i,j],i=0..d-j),j=0..d)g;

> E:=d->fseq(P(d,fibonacci(n),fibonacci(n+1)),n=1..nops(V(d))+5) g:

> Q:=(d,x,y)->subs(solve(E(d),V(d)),P(d,x,y));

>

> These lines feature the sort of indexed variables a[i,j] discussed

> above.

>

> (The full lecture from which I took these lines can be found at

> http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/em.html.)

>

There is some pdf cut-and-paste corruption of the example above. The

correct Maple code is:

with(combinat):

P:=(d,x,y)->add(add(a[i,j]*x**i*y**j,i=0..d-j),j=0..d);

V:=d->{seq(seq(a[i,j],i=0..d-j),j=0..d)};

E:=d->{seq(P(d,fibonacci(n),fibonacci(n+1)),n=1..nops(V(d))+5) };

Q:=(d,x,y)->subs(solve(E(d),V(d)),P(d,x,y));

A more direct translation to Sage might be something like this:

sage: P=lambda d,x,y: sum([ sum([ var("a"+str(i)+str(j))*x^i*y^j for i

in [0..d-j]]) for j in [0..d]])

sage: V=lambda d:sum([[var("a"+str(i)+str(j)) for i in [0..d-j]] for j

in [0..d]],[])

sage: E=lambda d: [ P(d,fibonacci(n),fibonacci(n+1)) for n in [1..len(V(d))+5] ]

sage: Q=lambda d,x,y:P(d,x,y).subs_expr(solve(E(d),V(d),solution_dict=True)[0])

sage: Q(1,x,y)

0

sage: Q(2,x,y)

0

sage: Q(3,x,y)

0

sage: Q(4,x,y).factor()

r21*(-y^2 + x*y + x^2 - 1)*(-y^2 + x*y + x^2 + 1)

Regards,

Bill Page.

Jun 3, 2009, 9:20:43 PM6/3/09

to sage-support

> > Here is a variant on the original question: suppose I wanted to write

> > a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i

> > +j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,

>

> sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(5))

> sage: vars = ["a"+str(i)+str(j) for i,j in Inds]

> sage: PolynomialRing(QQ,25,vars)

> Multivariate Polynomial Ring in a00, a01, a02, a03, a04, a10, a11,

> a12, a13, a14, a20, a21, a22, a23, a24, a30, a31, a32, a33, a34, a40,

> a41, a42, a43, a44 over Rational Field

Thanks again for the suggestions. I have one more foolish question
> > a line that creates a polynomial ring whose variables are a_{ij} for i

> > +j<=d. How should I do it? I might want to set this up, for example,

>

> sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(5))

> sage: vars = ["a"+str(i)+str(j) for i,j in Inds]

> sage: PolynomialRing(QQ,25,vars)

> Multivariate Polynomial Ring in a00, a01, a02, a03, a04, a10, a11,

> a12, a13, a14, a20, a21, a22, a23, a24, a30, a31, a32, a33, a34, a40,

> a41, a42, a43, a44 over Rational Field

about this sort of construction: if I type those lines into Sage and

then type something like

a00 + a11,

I get an error

NameError: name 'a00' is not defined.

I read about this sort of thing in the Sage Tutorial, but I couldn't

understand it well enough to figure out how to name the variables what

I wanted. Is there any easy way to do this?

Regards,

James Parson

Jun 3, 2009, 10:03:54 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

>

>

> Regards,

>

> James Parson

> >

>

Jun 3, 2009, 10:18:08 PM6/3/09

to sage-s...@googlegroups.com

Two options:

(1) Just type inject_on() and then aij will be defined:

sage: inject_on()

Redefining: FiniteField Frac FractionField FreeMonoid GF

LaurentSeriesRing NumberField PolynomialRing quo quotient

sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(5))

sage: vars = ["a"+str(i)+str(j) for i,j in Inds]

sage: PolynomialRing(QQ,25,vars)

Defining a00, a01, a02, a03, a04, a10, a11, a12, a13, a14, a20, a21,

a22, a23, a24, a30, a31, a32, a33, a34, a40, a41, a42, a43, a44

Multivariate Polynomial Ring in a00, a01, a02, a03, a04, a10, a11,

a12, a13, a14, a20, a21, a22, a23, a24, a30, a31, a32, a33, a34, a40,

a41, a42, a43, a44 over Rational Field

sage: a00 + a01

a00 + a01

sage: (a00 + a01)^3

a00^3 + 3*a00^2*a01 + 3*a00*a01^2 + a01^3

(2) Edit the globals dictionary:

sage: Inds = CartesianProduct(range(5), range(5))

sage: vars = ["a"+str(i)+str(j) for i,j in Inds]

sage: R = PolynomialRing(QQ,25,vars)

sage: for v in R.gens(): globals()[str(v)] = v

....:

sage: (a00 + a01)^3

a00^3 + 3*a00^2*a01 + 3*a00*a01^2 + a01^3

Jun 3, 2009, 11:42:02 PM6/3/09

to sage-support

William Stein wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw

> <robe...@math.washington.edu> wrote:

> >

> > Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

> > think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw

> <robe...@math.washington.edu> wrote:

> >

> > Currently symbolic variables are un-indexable. What would people

> > think of having indexing create new subscripted variables?

> That's a pretty wild and crazy idea. Cool. Does any other math

> software do that?

For the record, Maxima treats subscripted variables somewhat the
> software do that?

same as simple variables. (They should be the same but Maxima

is less than entirely consistent ....) A subscripted variable x[0] is

distinct from x_0 and x0.

Subscripted variables are the same as unevaluated function-like

expressions except that they have an extra flag which shows that

it's a subscript instead of a function argument.

I think it's useful to consider subscripted variables as a subset

of functional expressions; after all a subscripted variable is

function

which maps its set of indices to whatever.

> Are there any obvious gotcha's?

One is that x[m] and x[n] have no known relation when m and n

are different; there isn't any way to apply some property across

all of the subscripted variables x[foo].

The other is that x[foo] could be any of several things ---

could be a list element, a matrix row, an array element, a

hash table element, as well as a subscripted variable.

This multitude of interpretations of x[foo] can lead to confusion.

FWIW

Robert Dodier

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu