Snarks are not just any bridgeless cubic graphs - they are also connected and have chromatic number 4 (which makes them non-planar). So my guess is that, in French, or not, if somebody is talking about bridgeless cubic graphs, he or she would use term "bridgeless cubic graph". Talking about snarks in English, people use term "snark" instead of "connected bridgeless cubic graph with chromatic number 4" because it is more or less standard term for that. Whether it is a standard term in French, or some other term is used, I don't know.

Since Lewis Carrol's "The Hunting of the Snark" is translated to French as "La Chasse au Snark", it seems natural if the term "Snark" was used in French as well.

Alec

In the example that I posted (and then deleted) it worked OK because before that I evaluated it with 20 digits and it was remembered by either sin, or evalf, and produced a correct result because of that, and not because of manipulations with `*` definition, which I didn't realize at the moment. When I realized that, I deleted the example, and then tried to edit my post again, but unsuccessfully :)

Alec

In the example that I posted (and then deleted) it worked OK because before that I evaluated it with 20 digits and it was remembered by either sin, or evalf, and produced a correct result because of that, and not because of manipulations with `*` definition, which I didn't realize at the moment. When I realized that, I deleted the example, and then tried to edit my post again, but unsuccessfully :)

Alec

Axel,

I don't mind posting my own code (well, small pieces of it which I don't think that I could possibly make any money of :). In this case, it is other people's code, and if they decided to release it in GPL, because of the GPL's viral nature, it can't be changed by me.

Alec

Axel,

I don't mind posting my own code (well, small pieces of it which I don't think that I could possibly make any money of :). In this case, it is other people's code, and if they decided to release it in GPL, because of the GPL's viral nature, it can't be changed by me.

Alec

I'll post code later in the Maple Wiki. Meanwhile, as far as I recall, there are 2 other packages in R that can be used, copula and gumbel. Gumbel has a good description of what is going on (2 algorithms) in its help pdf.

Matlab has generally the same code.

Alec

I'll post code later in the Maple Wiki. Meanwhile, as far as I recall, there are 2 other packages in R that can be used, copula and gumbel. Gumbel has a good description of what is going on (2 algorithms) in its help pdf.

Matlab has generally the same code.

Alec

In Python 3, Guido van Rossum originally planned to get rid of all of them (named correspondingly lambda, map, filter, and reduce), but first 3 survived for now, and only reduce is not built-in now. With all that, reduce was much more used in Python than fold in Maple.

After several years of Python experience, I noticed that I started using seq instead of map and select in Maple much more often than I used to. It seems to be slightly faster, by the way, isn't it?

Alec

In Python 3, Guido van Rossum originally planned to get rid of all of them (named correspondingly lambda, map, filter, and reduce), but first 3 survived for now, and only reduce is not built-in now. With all that, reduce was much more used in Python than fold in Maple.

After several years of Python experience, I noticed that I started using seq instead of map and select in Maple much more often than I used to. It seems to be slightly faster, by the way, isn't it?

Alec

Yes, as in Mathematica.

I would just type evalf from the beginning - that doesn't make much of a difference.

evalf is a rather strange command though - it implies a numerical method for Int, but does something different for Sum.

Alec

Yes, as in Mathematica.

I would just type evalf from the beginning - that doesn't make much of a difference.

evalf is a rather strange command though - it implies a numerical method for Int, but does something different for Sum.

Alec

I think, Maple is calling an external code (a procedure from a dll written in C) for that - that is why it is so fast. That is more or less usual way of writing a fast code - write it in C (I often write directly in assembler), make a dll, and call it from Maple.

Alec

I think, Maple is calling an external code (a procedure from a dll written in C) for that - that is why it is so fast. That is more or less usual way of writing a fast code - write it in C (I often write directly in assembler), make a dll, and call it from Maple.

Alec

I had also a similar idea - just with a binary search (start from the middle of the list, then move to the middle of the half of it in the correct direction etc.) The Newton method iterations (instead of fsolve in my code) seem to be better though - normally one would need just a couple of them.

Alec

I had also a similar idea - just with a binary search (start from the middle of the list, then move to the middle of the half of it in the correct direction etc.) The Newton method iterations (instead of fsolve in my code) seem to be better though - normally one would need just a couple of them.

Alec