[sage-devel] Plotting fans
Hello, I had this problem with plotting fans in Sage 8.0 which still works in Sage 7.6. The problem breaks down to the following piece of code: cones = [Cone([(0,1),(1,0)]),Cone([(-2,-1),(-1,-3)]),Cone([(0,1),(-2,-1)]), Cone([(-1,-3),(1,0)])] F = Fan(cones) F.plot() I get an "unable to simplify to float approximation" error. So looking at geometry/toric_plotter.py and plot/disk.py, one of the calculations it could boil down to is: float(arctan2(RDF(-3),RDF(-1))) Here the same error occurs. Due to the RDF ring, the function arctan2 now returns a good value with a small imaginary part such that it cannot be floated. Hopefully, this issue can be resolved in some way. Carlo Verschoor. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: Draft blog post on Sage for Windows
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, kcrisman wrote: > This is great. I would add that you are right that 32-bit on Cygwin is > probably never going to be stable - I spent countless hours rebasing while > attempting to help with that. Yup. You can't just blindly rebaseall and hope it works. In fact rebase had a bug in it (only fixed a few weeks ago) that would cause it to get very confused and do some bad things if runs out of address spaces--I think there was an int overflow bug. > The only thing I would add is that you may want to add something brief on > exactly how people use the filesystem with the installer (e.g. where to save > Jupyter notebooks or images); it is one of the most common questions we get > on ask.sagemath regarding Windows with the Linux VM. (It may not be > appropriate for this post, but adding info to an easily accessible how-to > manual on how to get stuff off a VM into a normal filesystem would be great > too.) Ah, thanks for the reminder. I actually did mean to make a note about this, and about how Cygwin handles paths. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: Draft blog post on Sage for Windows
I would suggest adding a link or instructions for how to download your new SageMath installer for Windows. Nathan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: lib*.so conflict
Removing system-wide R has no effect on ptestlong. The same three failures occur. I'm out of ideas and out of time to work on this. For now, I will redirect the libreadline symlink to that belonging to the system, and get back to mathematical physics! Thanks for your efforts, - Richard On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 2:22:47 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > What does happen if you remove your system-wide (?) R installation, does > it have any effect? > I suspect it either interferes with running Sage (tests), or with building > Sage's R and Rpy... > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Does anyone use SAGE64?
Does anyone use the environment variables SAGE64 of CFLAG64? At https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23733, it is suggested that they be deprecated and then removed. Any comments? -- John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Does anyone use SAGE64?
On 1 Sep 2017 23:21, "John H Palmieri" wrote: > > Does anyone use the environment variables SAGE64 of CFLAG64? At https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23733, it is suggested that they be deprecated and then removed. Any comments? > > -- > John They are necessary if one attempts to build a 64 bit version on Solaris. I think they might be used on some versions of OSX too, but I am not sure about that. I would say that they should not be removed. I never managed to get a reliable 64 bit version on Solaris, but at one point the 32-bit version passed all the doctests. Dave. Dave. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Does anyone use SAGE64?
> On 2/09/2017, at 10:47, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) > wrote: > > > On 1 Sep 2017 23:21, "John H Palmieri" wrote: > > > > Does anyone use the environment variables SAGE64 of CFLAG64? At > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23733, it is suggested that they be > > deprecated and then removed. Any comments? > > > > -- > > John > > They are necessary if one attempts to build a 64 bit version on Solaris. I > think they might be used on some versions of OSX too, but I am not sure about > that. > > I would say that they should not be removed. > > I never managed to get a reliable 64 bit version on Solaris, but at one point > the 32-bit version passed all the doctests. > Not needed on OS X. Do you still do stuff on solaris? Do you need it for solaris 64 because the default is to compile 32bits? François -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Does anyone use SAGE64?
On 1 Sep 2017 23:54, "François Bissey" wrote: > > > > On 2/09/2017, at 10:47, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) < drkir...@kirkbymicrowave.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On 1 Sep 2017 23:21, "John H Palmieri" wrote: > > > > > > Does anyone use the environment variables SAGE64 of CFLAG64? At https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23733, it is suggested that they be deprecated and then removed. Any comments? > > > > > > -- > > > John > > > > They are necessary if one attempts to build a 64 bit version on Solaris. I think they might be used on some versions of OSX too, but I am not sure about that. > > > > I would say that they should not be removed. > > > > I never managed to get a reliable 64 bit version on Solaris, but at one point the 32-bit version passed all the doctests. > > > > Not needed on OS X. Do you still do stuff on solaris? > Do you need it for solaris 64 because the default is to compile 32bits? > > François I still run Solaris as my main OS. I have not done any Sage development for some time, but do intend restarting. Yes, the default is to build 32 bits, even on a 64-bit OS. I could have swore that it was used on at least same versions of OSX. I would need to look at the Sage source code, but am in bed using my mobile phone, that will have to wait until the morning. Dave. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Does anyone use SAGE64?
> On 2/09/2017, at 11:27, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) > wrote: > > I could have swore that it was used on at least same versions of OSX. I would > need to look at the Sage source code, but am in bed using my mobile phone, > that will have to wait until the morning. It could have in the past, but now the default is squarely 64bit. In fact I think 32bits apps will be disabled completely at some point in the near future. François -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Does anyone use SAGE64?
On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:47:28 PM UTC-7, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote: > > > On 1 Sep 2017 23:21, "John H Palmieri" > > wrote: > > > > Does anyone use the environment variables SAGE64 of CFLAG64? At > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23733, it is suggested that they be > deprecated and then removed. Any comments? > > > > -- > > John > > They are necessary if one attempts to build a 64 bit version on Solaris. I > think they might be used on some versions of OSX too, but I am not sure > about that. > > I would say that they should not be removed. > > I never managed to get a reliable 64 bit version on Solaris, but at one > point the 32-bit version passed all the doctests. > Hi Dave, Can you clarify? You say that the are necessary on Solaris, but is that recent information? It is possible that newer versions of Sage and/or Solaris might make SAGE64 unnecessary. Regards, John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Some polynomial timings
Hey everyone, I was talking with Ulrich Thiel (http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/thiel/) about his Magma package CHAMP (http://thielul.github.io/CHAMP/) and comparing it to our implementation of rational Cherednik algebras. One of the reasons that he did not chose Sage was because of the speed of polynomial arithmetic in Sage. He took some timings and recorded them here: http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/thiel/math/benchmarks/ I redid the example on my laptop, which has a similar CPU (i7-4720HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz), with the latest beta to compare: sage: R. = ZZ[] sage: %time f = (1+x+y+z+t)^30 CPU times: user 232 ms, sys: 0 ns, total: 232 ms Wall time: 241 ms sage: g = f+1 sage: %time temp = f * g CPU times: user 16min 34s, sys: 8 ms, total: 16min 34s Wall time: 16min 34s sage: 16 * 60 + 34 994 >From Ulrich's timings, it seems like we are still loosing quite a lot in converting to/from singular. So that might be something that we can improve upon. I was thinking people might be interested in this. Here's also some slides that does some comparisons on multiplication of multivariate polynomials: http://www.orcca.on.ca/conferences/cca2008/presentations/Monagan_DivMultSparsePolynomials.pdf Also, Ulrich has told me that he wishes the Sage interface to Magma and Maple was not just a pexpect interface, and I was asked by someone else at the recent Sage days about a Sage interface to Magma. I am not in a position to work on this, lacking a version of both, but there is some interest in the community about having a good interface. Best, Travis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Plotting fans
On Friday, 1 September 2017 03:16:45 UTC-6, Carlo Verschoor wrote: > > Hello, I had this problem with plotting fans in Sage 8.0 which still works > in Sage 7.6. The problem breaks down to the following piece of code: > > cones = [Cone([(0,1),(1,0)]),Cone([(-2,-1),(-1,-3)]),Cone([(0,1),(-2,-1 > )]),Cone([(-1,-3),(1,0)])] > F = Fan(cones) > F.plot() > > I get an "unable to simplify to float approximation" error. So looking > at geometry/toric_plotter.py and plot/disk.py, one of the calculations it > could boil down to is: > > float(arctan2(RDF(-3),RDF(-1))) > > Here the same error occurs. Due to the RDF ring, the function arctan2 now > returns a good value with a small imaginary part such that it cannot be > floated. > > Hopefully, this issue can be resolved in some way. > > Carlo Verschoor. > Thank you for reporting and diagnosing, this is now https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23776 which I am going to fix over weekend unless someone does it faster! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Some polynomial timings
Hi Travis, On 2017-09-02, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > sage: R. = ZZ[] > sage: %time f = (1+x+y+z+t)^30 > CPU times: user 232 ms, sys: 0 ns, total: 232 ms > Wall time: 241 ms > sage: g = f+1 > sage: %time temp = f * g > CPU times: user 16min 34s, sys: 8 ms, total: 16min 34s > Wall time: 16min 34s > sage: 16 * 60 + 34 > 994 > > From Ulrich's timings, it seems like we are still loosing quite a lot in > converting to/from singular. Is it really the *conversion*? I wouldn't be surprised if that example would take a long time in Singular without a conversion. The polynomials in Singular are not optimised for arithmetics but for Gröbner basis computations, which (as I was told some time ago) are two totally different things. Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Does anyone use SAGE64?
On 2 Sep 2017 01:41, "John H Palmieri" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Can you clarify? You say that the are necessary on Solaris, but is that recent information? It is possible that newer versions of Sage and/or Solaris might make SAGE64 unnecessary. > > Regards, > John Hi John, I will look into this. Dave. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
