You can subscribe to this list here.
2008 
_{Jan}
(4) 
_{Feb}
(2) 
_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}
(2) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}
(27) 
_{Nov}

_{Dec}
(6) 

2009 
_{Jan}
(3) 
_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}
(1) 
_{May}

_{Jun}
(27) 
_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}
(3) 
_{Oct}
(22) 
_{Nov}
(12) 
_{Dec}

2010 
_{Jan}
(11) 
_{Feb}
(3) 
_{Mar}
(2) 
_{Apr}
(11) 
_{May}
(29) 
_{Jun}
(59) 
_{Jul}

_{Aug}
(3) 
_{Sep}
(2) 
_{Oct}
(8) 
_{Nov}
(3) 
_{Dec}

2011 
_{Jan}
(5) 
_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}
(6) 
_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}
(13) 
_{Aug}
(4) 
_{Sep}
(4) 
_{Oct}
(19) 
_{Nov}

_{Dec}
(2) 
2012 
_{Jan}
(2) 
_{Feb}
(1) 
_{Mar}
(3) 
_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}
(1) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

2013 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}
(78) 
_{Jun}
(10) 
_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}
(2) 
2014 
_{Jan}
(2) 
_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}
(1) 
_{Oct}
(1) 
_{Nov}

_{Dec}

2017 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}
(1) 
_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 



1
(22) 
2
(10) 
3
(2) 
4
(3) 
5
(10) 
6
(2) 
7
(1) 
8

9

10
(3) 
11
(2) 
12

13

14
(1) 
15

16

17
(1) 
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
(1) 
28
(1) 
29

30




From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100628 18:08:47

Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> writes:  ;;; *** *1;mean;1;frame3186 REDEFINED Additionally this 'REDEFINED' noise, along with similar STYLEWARNING by SBCL should be gone from trunk as of today.  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100627 17:45:52

Martin Rubey <martin.rubey@...> writes:  A while ago we had a discussion about restoring one? and zero? without  conclusion. I believe they are restored in OpenAxiom. There may be a few place where I forgot to restore them, but the intent is to fully restore them.  I just ran into an example, which was at first surprising  to me, but may shed light on some issues: >  Just for fun, I tried to compute a determinant of arithmetic function.  Here is what happened: >  (22) > m: DIRRING INT := (n:PI):INT +> moebiusMu(n) >  (22) [1, 1, 1,0, 1,1, 1,0,0,1,...]  Type: DirichletRing(Integer)  (23) > c := recip m >  (23) [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,...]  Type: Union(DirichletRing(Integer),...)  (24) > ma := matrix [[c^(i*j) for i in 1..5] for j in 1..5]; >  Type: Matrix(DirichletRing(Integer))  (25) > determinant ma  Function: ?=? : (%,%) > Boolean is missing from domain:  DirichletRing(Integer)  Internal Error  The function = with signature (Boolean)$$ is missing from domain  DirichletRing(Integer) >  Well, of course I didn't implement equality  it's not possible. But  why would determinant need equality? >  Well, it turns out it want's to check whether something is *possibly*  nonzero. Thus, it would be quite possible to compute the determinant if  we had a function zero? that is guaranteed to answer true only for 0,  and false otherwise. >  I think it would be good to define and implement such a scheme. I'd  think that for quite a few domains we can answer some questions in a  useful way. >  Of course, it is very important to fix the semantics and attach good  names to the operations. So perhaps possiblyNonZero? or guaranteedZero?  would be better. (Same thing for = and one?) Isn't the real problem that you made a promise in the exports of DirichletRing that it satisfies BasicType (which means one can test for equality) and then you proceed right to ignore that promise?  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100617 05:13:27

Erik  You were wondering how to create a new symbol in OpenAxiom. You can either create it "on the fly", new()$Symbol or as an initial value of a variable s: Symbol := new() 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100614 05:41:19

Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> writes:  SquareMatrix behave differently from Matrix.  Here is examples:   ====================================================8<====  (8) > A: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) := matrix[[1,2],[3,4]]   +1 2+  (8)    +3 4+  Type: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer)  (10) > A*2   (10) [6,14]  Type: DirectProduct(2,Expression Complex Integer)  (11) > %i*A   (11) [4%i,6%i]  Type: DirectProduct(2,Expression Complex Integer)  (12) > 2*A   +2 4+  (12)    +6 8+  Type: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer)   ====================================================>8==== Igor  I have a good news and a bad news. The good news is that, based on discussion from yesterday I conducted an experiment in a local tree, where I removed all assertions that made DirectProduct into a Ring (a very curious idea for that generic domain), and also the full retraction to R. That removed any opportunity of misguided implicit coercion of a scalar to a vector. And the issue above evaporated, e.g. I got all expected results. The bad news is that I will have to install the patch in stages and that will take a while.  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@in...>  20100611 19:13:58

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> wrote: > 2010/6/11 Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@...>: >> >>> 1. Does it mean "OpenAxiom is proper Axiom"? >>> 2. Is it a hint on axiom of choice in set theory? >> >> All of the above :) >> > > Thank you. I'm writing a manual for our students ;) > If you would like me to look at a draft, that is OK.  Gaby 
From: Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@gm...>  20100611 04:39:09

2010/6/11 Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@...>: > >> 1. Does it mean "OpenAxiom is proper Axiom"? >> 2. Is it a hint on axiom of choice in set theory? > > All of the above :) > Thank you. I'm writing a manual for our students ;) 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@in...>  20100610 21:25:05

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> wrote: > I whould like to make clear the phrase: "Axiom of Choice" :) It was a pun, the interpretation of which was left at the discretion of users :) > > 1. Does it mean "OpenAxiom is proper Axiom"? > 2. Is it a hint on axiomof choice in set theory? All of the above :)  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100610 17:02:57

Ralf Hemmecke <ralf@...> writes:  Does someone have an idea, why I get DirectProduct below?  I would have accepted, if it fails. (Actually it shouldn't since  coercing to Fraction(...) should have been easy. But I agree, it's  inside the argument of a type (SquareMatrix), so a bit tricky.)   Anyway, the interpreter seems to use   *: (DirectProduct(2, R), %) > DirectProduct(2,R)   So it converts   (101) > ((20 + 97*%i)*x + 4*%i)::  DirectProduct(2,Fraction(Polynomial(Complex(Integer))))   (101) [(20 + 97%i)x + 4%i,(20 + 97%i)x + 4%i]   Why does the interpreter consider that to be easier than converting my  element just to Fraction(Polynomial(Complex(Integer))) and do the right  thing?   Strange...   Ralf    (98) > p::SquareMatrix(2, Fraction Polynomial(Complex Integer))   +(5 + 12%i)x + %i ( 21  14%i)x+  (98)    + ( 21  14%i)x 49x + 4 +  Type:  SquareMatrix(2,Fraction(Polynomial(Complex(Integer))))  (99) > inverse(%)   + 49x + 4 (21 + 14%i)x +     (20 + 97%i)x + 4%i (20 + 97%i)x + 4%i  (99)     (21 + 14%i)x (5 + 12%i)x + %i      +(20 + 97%i)x + 4%i (20 + 97%i)x + 4%i+  Type:  Union(SquareMatrix(2,Fraction(Polynomial(Complex(Integer)))),...)  (97) > (((20 + 97*%i)*x + 4*%i)::Fraction(Polynomial(Complex Integer)))*%   + 49x + 4 (21 + 14%i)x +  (97)    +(21 + 14%i)x (5 + 12%i)x + %i+  Type:  SquareMatrix(2,Fraction(Polynomial(Complex(Integer))))  (100) > ((20 + 97*%i)*x + 4*%i) * %   (100) [(70 + 14%i)x + 4,(26 + 26%i)x + %i]  Type:  DirectProduct(2,Fraction(Polynomial(Complex(Integer)))) Sounds familiar: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=877hmdxxmu.fsf%40gauss.cs.tamu.edu 
From: Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@gm...>  20100610 10:16:36

I whould like to make clear the phrase: "Axiom of Choice" :) 1. Does it mean "OpenAxiom is proper Axiom"? 2. Is it a hint on axiomof choice in set theory? 
From: Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@gm...>  20100607 07:47:04

So, how can I work with Hermitian transposed matrix: [[0,0, Jz  Iz + I,%i Jy  Jx + %i Iy  Ix], [0,0, %i Jy  Jx  %i Iy  Ix,Jz + Iz + I], [Jz + Iz + I, %i Jy + Jx  %i Iy + Ix,0,0], [%i Jy + Jx + %i Iy + Ix, Jz  Iz + I,0,0]] ? 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100606 19:32:24

Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> writes:  Why this doesn't work?  (1) > conjugate (x+%i*y) The short answer is: because OpenAxiom does not know what you meant. :) The longer answer is this: OpenAxiom wants every expression to have a definite type  because types convey semantics. When you write x + %i * y with nothing known about x and y, OpenAxiom assumes that you want to do computation with polynomials (because that is the basic data structure in computer algebra systems) with complex integer coefficients (because of %i). So, it tries to look for an operation named 'conjugate' that can take a polynomial with complex integer coefficients. There is none, which is what the error message says. Now, you probably did not want to work with polynomials. If you just wanted to work with an 'expression' with constants drawn from COMPLEX INT, and you wanted to assume that 'x' and 'y' are integers then, in OpenAxiom you can write x: Integer y: Integer x + %i * y that would give the type EXPR COMPLEX INT for that expression. So far so good. Where things don't go very well is that currently we don't have an operation 'conjugate' on EXPR COMPLEX INT. That is a bug, because we have operations 'real' and 'imag' on EXPR COMPLEX INT, so we should logically have operation 'conjugate'. I'll fix that shortly. Note that this issue is related to the bug report http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2807496&group_id=203172&atid=984524 I would like to see a progress on that issue. Ideas welcome. Note also that the ability to state the assumptions x: Integer y: Integer on the variables 'x' and 'y' to get x + %i * y interpreted as an expression over complex integer is unique to OpenAxiom in the AXIOM family. Eventually, the type of such expressions should be Symbolic Complex Integer, not to be confused with Expression Complex Integer, since the Expression functor is not wellliked in certain circles. I don't know.  And how to work with complex quantity  just knowing that it is complex? If you have a defined value from the domain Complex D, then you can use all operations available for complex numbers.  Gaby 
From: Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@gm...>  20100606 17:57:34

Why this doesn't work? (1) > conjugate (x+%i*y) And how to work with complex quantity just knowing that it is complex? 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100605 16:19:22

Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@...> writes: [...]   (1) > )expose SQMATRIX   SquareMatrix is now explicitly exposed in frame frame778   (1) > A: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) := matrix[[1,2],[3,4]]     +1 2+   (1)     +3 4+   Type: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer)   (2) > %i*A     (2) [4%i,6%i]   Type: DirectProduct(2,Expression Complex Integer)   the modemap selection trace gives me this   Function Selection for * [...]  [1] signature: (DIRPROD(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT),SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > DIRPROD(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)  implemented: slot (DirectProduct 2 (Expression (Complex (Integer))))(DirectProduct 2 (Expression (Complex (Integer))))$ from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) I offered the data with no much analysis. Here it is. The multiplication %i*A isn't exactly the multiplication of a scalar by a 'vector' as from vector space, since A has entries from EXPR COMPLEX INT, whereas %i is COMPLEX INT. So, there is no direct match for '*'. Next, the interpreter tries to find one by doing some coercions. Among the available signatures, it finds out that it can leftmultiply the square matrix A by a 'row' vector if it can coerce %i to that rowvector. Which it did because there a coerce function from a 'scalar' to a rawvector (which I find misguided). This goes back to a comment I made a couple of days ago: strange things can happen when operations are overloaded just because one can, without much consideration for the semantics.  [2] signature: (EXPR COMPLEX INT,SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)  implemented: slot $(Expression (Complex (Integer)))$ from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)  [3] signature: (SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT),SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)  implemented: slot $$$ from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)   Definitely a bug. Yes: why the interpreter should also have tried the second signature to find out that it can work, therefore at least report an ambiguity. The problem seems to come from this conditional assertion in DirectProductCategory if R has SetCategory then FullyRetractableTo R  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100605 15:45:00

Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> writes:  5 июня 2010 г. 19:08 пользователь Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@...> написал:  >  > This is because SquareMatrix was not exposed by default in the interpreter.  > I discovered that right after I sent the other email, so I committed a fix to  > trunk. You can either  > (1) build the most recent version, or  > (2) execute  > )expose SQMATRIX  >  > and try again  you should get the right answer.   I tried )expose SQMATRIX, but with the same results :) oops, restarting afresh, I get the same result as you...  (1) > )expose SQMATRIX  SquareMatrix is now explicitly exposed in frame frame778  (1) > A: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) := matrix[[1,2],[3,4]]   +1 2+  (1)    +3 4+  Type: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer)  (2) > %i*A   (2) [4%i,6%i]  Type: DirectProduct(2,Expression Complex Integer) the modemap selection trace gives me this Function Selection for * Arguments: (COMPLEX INT,SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > no appropriate * found in Complex Integer > no appropriate * found in SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) > no appropriate map found in Expression Complex Integer > no appropriate map found in Complex Integer > no appropriate map found in Expression SquareMatrix(2,Complex Integer) > no appropriate map found in SquareMatrix(2,Complex Integer) > no appropriate map found in Complex Integer > no appropriate map found in SquareMatrix(2,Complex Integer) Modemaps from Associated Packages [1] ((D4 > D5),Expression D4) > Expression D5 from ExpressionFunctions2(D4,D5) if D4 has SETCAT and D5 has SETCAT [2] ((D4 > D1),Kernel D4) > D1 from ExpressionSpaceFunctions2(D4, D1) if D4 has ES and D1 has ES [3] ((D4 > D5),Complex D4) > Complex D5 from ComplexFunctions2(D4, D5) if D4 has COMRING and D5 has COMRING > no appropriate * found in Complex Integer [1] signature: (DIRPROD(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT),SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > DIRPROD(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) implemented: slot (DirectProduct 2 (Expression (Complex (Integer))))(DirectProduct 2 (Expression (Complex (Integer))))$ from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) [2] signature: (EXPR COMPLEX INT,SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) implemented: slot $(Expression (Complex (Integer)))$ from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) [3] signature: (SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT),SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) implemented: slot $$$ from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) Definitely a bug.  (3) > 2*A   +2 4+  (3)    +6 8+  Type: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) Function Selection for * Arguments: (PI,SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > no appropriate * found in PositiveInteger > no appropriate * found in Integer [1] signature: (PI,SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) implemented: slot $(PositiveInteger)$ from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)  (4) > A*2   (4) [6,14]  Type: DirectProduct(2,Expression Complex Integer) Function Selection for * Arguments: (SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT),PI) > no appropriate * found in SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) > no appropriate * found in PositiveInteger > no appropriate * found in Integer > no appropriate * found in PositiveInteger > no appropriate * found in Integer [1] signature: (SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT),DIRPROD(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > DIRPROD(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) implemented: slot (DirectProduct 2 (Expression (Complex (Integer))))$(DirectProduct 2 (Expression (Complex (Integer)))) from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) [2] signature: (SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT),EXPR COMPLEX INT) > SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) implemented: slot $$(Expression (Complex (Integer))) from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) [3] signature: (SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT),SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT)) > SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) implemented: slot $$$ from SQMATRIX(2,EXPR COMPLEX INT) Definitly a bug.  Gaby 
From: Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@gm...>  20100605 15:22:10

5 июня 2010 г. 19:08 пользователь Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@...> написал: > > This is because SquareMatrix was not exposed by default in the interpreter. > I discovered that right after I sent the other email, so I committed a fix to > trunk. You can either > (1) build the most recent version, or > (2) execute > )expose SQMATRIX > > and try again  you should get the right answer. I tried )expose SQMATRIX, but with the same results :) (1) > )expose SQMATRIX SquareMatrix is now explicitly exposed in frame frame778 (1) > A: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) := matrix[[1,2],[3,4]] +1 2+ (1)   +3 4+ Type: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) (2) > %i*A (2) [4%i,6%i] Type: DirectProduct(2,Expression Complex Integer) (3) > 2*A +2 4+ (3)   +6 8+ Type: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) (4) > A*2 (4) [6,14] Type: DirectProduct(2,Expression Complex Integer) 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100605 15:13:29

Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> writes:  Also I discovered [by )show SquareMatrix] a cool feature that "0" is  interpreted as nullmatrix,  and any variable or number  as unitmatrix multiplied by this  variable or number :) 0 and 1 are treated specially by AXIOM systems: they are constants that can be overloaded. Usually they are associated with AbelianMonoid (in case of 0) and Monoid (in case of 1). So any domain that satisfy Ring has both defined. Notice that the general rule in AXIOM systems is to overload based on *semantics* and conventions. This is very different from many other languages where people just overload because they can. There is no general overloading of numbers (yet).  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100605 15:10:51

Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> writes:  SquareMatrix behave differently from Matrix. This is because SquareMatrix was not exposed by default in the interpreter. I discovered that right after I sent the other email, so I committed a fix to trunk. You can either (1) build the most recent version, or (2) execute )expose SQMATRIX and try again  you should get the right answer. [...]  Also horizConcat rejects SquareMatrix arguments.  So how do I compose "big" matrix from square matrices? horizConcat is a binary operation, so is not defined on square marices: you cannot make a square matrix out of horizontal concatenation of two square matrices. So, you have to operate on Matrix, not SquareMatrix: A' := A::MATRIX EXPR COMPLEX INT horizConcat(A',A')  Gaby 
From: Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@gm...>  20100605 13:55:58

SquareMatrix behave differently from Matrix. Here is examples: ====================================================8<==== (8) > A: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) := matrix[[1,2],[3,4]] +1 2+ (8)   +3 4+ Type: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) (10) > A*2 (10) [6,14] Type: DirectProduct(2,Expression Complex Integer) (11) > %i*A (11) [4%i,6%i] Type: DirectProduct(2,Expression Complex Integer) (12) > 2*A +2 4+ (12)   +6 8+ Type: SquareMatrix(2,Expression Complex Integer) ====================================================>8==== Also horizConcat rejects SquareMatrix arguments. So how do I compose "big" matrix from square matrices? 5 июня 2010 г. 6:30 пользователь Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@...> написал: > > e1: SQMATRIX(2, EXPR COMPLEX INT) := matrix [[1,0], [0,1]] > e2: SQMATRIX(2, EXPR COMPLEX INT) := matrix [[0,%i],[%i,0]] > e3: SQMATRIX(2, EXPR COMPLEX INT) := matrix [[1,0], [0,1]] > v := vector [e1,e2,e3] > dot(v,v) 
From: Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@gm...>  20100605 13:44:03

Also I discovered [by )show SquareMatrix] a cool feature that "0" is interpreted as nullmatrix, and any variable or number  as unitmatrix multiplied by this variable or number :) 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100605 02:32:43

Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> writes:  Next, let's talk about 'dot'.   How can I 'dot' vectors of matrices?   (20) > %sigma   +0 1+ +0  %i+ +1 0 +  (20) [ , , ]  +1 0+ +%i 0 + +0  1+  Type: Vector Matrix Complex Integer  (21) > dot (%sigma,%sigma)  There are 2 exposed and 2 unexposed library operations named dot  having 2 argument(s) but none was determined to be applicable.  Use HyperDoc Browse, or issue  )display op dot  to learn more about the available operations. Perhaps  packagecalling the operation or using coercions on the arguments  will allow you to apply the operation.   Cannot find a definition or applicable library operation named dot  with argument type(s)  Vector Matrix Complex Integer  Vector Matrix Complex Integer   Perhaps you should use "@" to indicate the required return type,  or "$" to specify which version of the function you need. The problem here is the same as in your other attempts: the operation 'dot' is defined on Vector D only if the domain D satisfies Ring. However, the domain MATRIX COMPLEX INT does not satisfy Ring. The reason it does not is that if you take two values of type MATRIX COMPLEX INT, there is no guarantee that their sum or multiplication is defined, since they could be of different dimensions. Try instead e1: SQMATRIX(2, EXPR COMPLEX INT) := matrix [[1,0], [0,1]] e2: SQMATRIX(2, EXPR COMPLEX INT) := matrix [[0,%i],[%i,0]] e3: SQMATRIX(2, EXPR COMPLEX INT) := matrix [[1,0], [0,1]] v := vector [e1,e2,e3] dot(v,v)  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs...>  20100605 02:15:10

Игорь Пашев <pashev.igor@...> writes:  Also there is a trouble with variables and operators. The dot product on values of Vector D is defined onl if D satisfies Ring. BasicOperator does not satisfy Ring, so this  (16) > x:=operator 'x   (16) x  Type: BasicOperator  (17) > y:=operator 'y   (17) y  Type: BasicOperator  (18) > z:=operator 'z   (18) z  Type: BasicOperator  (19) > k:= vector[x,y,z]   (19) [x,y,z]  Type: Vector BasicOperator  (20) > dot (k,k) should be rejected  as it was. Similarly, OrderedVariableList does not satisfy Ring, so this  (13) > k:= vector[x,y,z]   (13) [x,y,z]  Type: Vector OrderedVariableList [x,y,z]  (14) > q:= vector[1,2,3]   (14) [1,2,3]  Type: Vector PositiveInteger  (15) > dot (k,q)   (15) 3z + 2y + x  Type: Polynomial Integer  (16) > dot (k,k) this should also be rejected. The expression dot(k,q) was computed only because both k and q could be injected into a "higher" domain  Vector Polynomial Integer  and the dot product computed on the result of those injections. If you are just interested in 'expressions', you can use the Expresion Integer domain: (1) > x : Expression Integer := 'x (1) x Type: Expression Integer (2) > y : EXPR INT := 'y (2) y Type: Expression Integer (3) > z : EXPR INT := 'z (3) z Type: Expression Integer (4) > v := vector [x,y,z] (4) [x,y,z] Type: Vector Expression Integer (5) > dot(v,v) 2 2 2 (5) z + y + x Type: Expression Integer  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@in...>  20100605 01:55:39

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:30 PM, £ukasz <blurrpp@...> wrote: > whet i run no "openaxiom" but "AXIOMsys" everything work ok. Integrate etc. Hmm, what operating system are you running OpenAxiom on?  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@in...>  20100604 23:42:31

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:30 PM, £ukasz <blurrpp@...> wrote: > yep i get it , compiled ( without error :) ) every thing look ok > i start openaxiom i get > > (1)> > > and .... after anything i write for example a=b, integrate(x,x) etc. i recive state: > > (1)> integrate(x,x) > _ > > > or > > (1)> )compile "path to .spad" > _ > > > and i can wait till it do sth ages ;). I check congiguration and compilation ... it looks ok, no errors. Send me your Spad file test.  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@in...>  20100604 23:09:53

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:00 PM, £ukasz <blurrpp@...> wrote: > Hi > This method described in pdf in your link should work with axiom either ? The method described in the link I gave is known to implemented in OpenAxiom http://www.openaxiom.org/ and work as described. I have no information that it is implemented in other AXIOM systems. You can get OpenAxiom from http://www.openaxiom.org/download.html  Gaby 
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@in...>  20100604 14:40:28

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:25 AM, £ukasz <blurrpp@...> wrote: > Hi. > I want to ask if its possibe to write some finction in C and aply it in AXjOM ( its possibe in MATHEMATICA. SINGULAR, YACAS etc). If it is please give me some links. > It is possible to write a function in C and call it directly from library code (Spad code) in OpenAxiom. Here is a link http://parasol.tamu.edu/~gdr/OpenAxiom/ffidraft.pdf It has been used by Stefan Mai to experiment with SIMD features (SSE2, SSE3, etc.) on modern CPUs. More recently, Arthur Ralf has been using it to provide an interface to his panAXIOM server project.  Gaby 