Re: [sage-devel] Sphinx directives in upper case?

[TB]

  
  
On 25/01/2024 7:06, Kwankyu Lee wrote:


  
  Hi,
  
  
  Our developer guide dictates to write Sphinx directives in
upper case. So for example, ".. MATH::" instead of ".. math::".
By the way, it seems that Sphinx community seems to regard lower
case as norm. So my question is: why do we insist upper case?
Could anyone point to a discussion thread that decided on this?
  
  

More than 13 years ago we have
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/10077 and
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/10078 that have comments
about the case. Some further history might stem from stropping...
For those looking in the docs, one place is here.


On 25/01/2024 10:18, Kwankyu Lee wrote:


  In my humble opinion,  except 
  
  
  ".. SEEALSO::", "..WARNING::", ".. TODO::", ".. NOTE::", ".. RUBRIC::", "..
PLOT::", "..TOPIC::",
  which seek for reader's attention, 
  

  we
  should use lower case (by default) for all other directives,
  following Sphinx community's trend. In particular, ".. MATH::"
  is only distracting.

No strong opinion from me, except maybe for having consistency
  within a given file. The INPUT and OUTPUT blocks are related, but
  they are not directives. Do you think they should be?



Regards,
TB


  




-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/b3ac9046-7edd-4f57-8e08-e5a198e0295e%40gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Efficiency of Groebner basis for constraints of the form $(a_i x_i+b_i)(a_j x_j+b_j)=0$

[Georgi Guninski]

This is based on numerical experiments in sage.

Let $K$ be a ring and define the ideal where each polynomial
is of the form $(a_i x_i+b_i)(a_j x_j+b_j)=0$  for constant $a_i,b_i,a_j,b_j$.

>Q1 Is it true that for constraints of this form the groebner basis is 
>efficiently computable?

By "efficiently" we mean polynomial in the number of variables and
wall clock time of seconds for say 100 variables and if we a add
single constraint of other form the running time degrades.

For $K=\mathbb{F}_2$ this is equivalent to 2-SAT, which is
efficiently solvable.

We believe that adding one more linear factor, $(a_k x_k+b_k)$
will be NP-complete.

>Q2 Why adding the factor brings hardness?

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGUWgD95_z_Xt8eZ%2BW1mktQ2ddmX_4HHx%2BwGdBhE8BiUyG7Q%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Efficiency of Groebner basis for constraints of the form $(a_i x_i+b_i)(a_j x_j+b_j)=0$

[Dima Pasechnik]

On 31 January 2024 16:42:39 GMT, Georgi Guninski  wrote:
>This is based on numerical experiments in sage.
>
>Let $K$ be a ring and define the ideal where each polynomial
>is of the form $(a_i x_i+b_i)(a_j x_j+b_j)=0$  for constant $a_i,b_i,a_j,b_j$.

Do you have exactly one (or at most) relation for any pair of variables? Can 
one have i=j ?

Or it's the notation which should be improved?

>
>>Q1 Is it true that for constraints of this form the groebner basis is 
>>efficiently computable?
>
>By "efficiently" we mean polynomial in the number of variables and
>wall clock time of seconds for say 100 variables and if we a add
>single constraint of other form the running time degrades.
>
>For $K=\mathbb{F}_2$ this is equivalent to 2-SAT, which is
>efficiently solvable.
>
>We believe that adding one more linear factor, $(a_k x_k+b_k)$
>will be NP-complete.
>
>>Q2 Why adding the factor brings hardness?
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/A526B762-E079-45B2-825A-76DF9490C499%40gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] ChatGPT article

['Justin C. Walker' via sage-devel]

I apologize for this.  No idea how sage snuck into the addressing.

> On Jan 31, 2024, at 16:24 , 'Justin C. Walker' via sage-devel 
>  wrote:
> 
> A quick read, about using ChatGPT (or LLM-based AI) to assist in teaching 
> Calculus to undergrads (or, as my dad used to call it “pouring electricity 
> into oak stumps”).
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/C86D47D3-B244-4A01-AD55-FAA079595BFD%40mac.com
>  
> .
> 
> 
> --
> Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
> Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
> ---
> While creating wives, God promised men
> that good and obedient wives would be
> found in all corners of the world.
> Then He made the earth round.
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/C86D47D3-B244-4A01-AD55-FAA079595BFD%40mac.com
>  
> .

--
Justin C. Walker
Director
Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income
--
Fame is fleeting, but obscurity
   just drags on and on.  F&E



-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/3EF945A8-5532-421D-A1D9-87AB044641B3%40mac.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Efficiency of Groebner basis for constraints of the form $(a_i x_i+b_i)(a_j x_j+b_j)=0$

[Georgi Guninski]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:54 PM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:
>
> Do you have exactly one (or at most) relation for any pair of variables? Can 
> one have i=j ?
>
> Or it's the notation which should be improved?
>

The number of relations for a pair of variables can be arbitrary.
i=j appears irrelevant, choose it as you want.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGUWgD9AtK43yGeasyiDkyBOvQ_%3DV1Yx930N3%3DPHZ7g723o42g%40mail.gmail.com.