Hi Nick,
I still think you do not understand what I am saying.
Here is coercion between polynomials (manually) implemented using
the __call__ method on polynomials.
sage: ZX=ZZ['x']
sage: ZXY=ZZ['x','y']
sage: f=(ZX.gen())^2+1 (f is now a univariate polynomial over x)
sage: g=f(ZXY.gen(0)) (g is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Given: I'm currently taking undergrad algebra, and I'm not as well-steeped in
> fields as I'd like. But Wikipedia tells me that a polynomial ring over any
> field is Euclidean... so this seems horribly, horribly wrong.
>
A polynomial ring in one variable over a fiel
Given: I'm currently taking undergrad algebra, and I'm not as well-steeped in
fields as I'd like. But Wikipedia tells me that a polynomial ring over any
field is Euclidean... so this seems horribly, horribly wrong.
{{{
F. = GF(31^2,'u')
R. = F['x','y','z']
p = x^3 + (1+u)*y^3 + z^3
q = p^3
pr
Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>As far as I understand the SAGE coercion model, this is not correct.
>>
>>_coerce_ is supposed to be canonical, in a sense that is defined but
>>not entirely clear to me.
>>
>>__call__ is emphatically *not* canonical. So calling __call__ in
>>_coerce_ is neve
Hi,
I've posted sage-2.5.1.alpha here:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/tmp/
If you like building and trying out alpha versions before a release,
please do so
with that one and let me know if you run into any show-stopper problems.
Thanks!
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mat
I would like to register to use sage.
Marshall Hampton,
SAGE user #1
:)
On May 18, 3:47 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> On May 18, 10:07 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I HATE it when software phones home. There should be, at least, a config
> > entry available to dis
On May 18, 10:07 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I HATE it when software phones home. There should be, at least, a config
> entry available to disable this behavior. And IMO, it should be disabled by
> default.
>
Yes, Opt in is the way to go. Anything else is just plain EVIL(tm).
The other
I HATE it when software phones home. There should be, at least, a config entry
available to disable this behavior. And IMO, it should be disabled by default.
On Fri, 18 May 2007, William Stein wrote:
>
> Te next question arises -- do we gather information about the number
> of users based on
I'm worried that this check is going to slow down a developer
working on a cloned copy. In this case, one is probably not interested
in updating. Could this auto-update be turned off by default in all clones?
William Stein wrote:
> On 5/18/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How woul
To be on the safe side, I would only ever report actual downloads.
Upgrades included. I don't like "phone home" software either.
Also, make it grab "sagemath.org" from the config file, so someone
could disable it/set it to their own personal mirror, etc.
- Robert
On May 18, 2007, at 12:06
Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> And just for the record, I have a patch that coerces polynomial rings
>> in any number of variables into rings with a superset of those
>> variables, but its not yet ready for submission.
>>
> There is an implementation independent method for doing this wh
>As far as I understand the SAGE coercion model, this is not correct.
>
>_coerce_ is supposed to be canonical, in a sense that is defined but
>not entirely clear to me.
>
>__call__ is emphatically *not* canonical. So calling __call__ in
>_coerce_ is never a good idea, and certainly not right by d
Te next question arises -- do we gather information about the number
of users based on this? I'm scared -- I don't want SAGE to be called
"evil spyware!"
-- Forwarded message --
From: Arthur Gaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 18, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [sage-devel] Re: automa
Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 18, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>> One way to make notifications less obtrusive is to make them
>> omnipresent. That is, the banner could always read
>>
>> --
>
I would like to see the file size of the web pages that the notebook
is dishing out be addressed, because I have been on several computers
where the public notebooks take much longer to show than on the
library computers.
sagenb.org 872.67 KB
http://sagenb.org/doc_browser?/?index.html 867.21 KB
s
On May 18, 2007, at 11:28 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On 5/18/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Would it confuse users who could not update
>> (eg, students using the SAGE notebook in a lab)?
>
> The message would be invisible to notebook users. (??)
As more and more (non-dev) use
On May 18, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
> One way to make notifications less obtrusive is to make them
> omnipresent. That is, the banner could always read
>
> --
> | SAGE Version 2.5.alpha2, Release Date: 2007-05-02
On 5/18/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How would this work? If sagemath was down or there wasn't a net connection
> would there be a weird error?
No. It would try to contact sagemath once during each 1 week period. If
during that time it found that an upgrade is available, it wou
>
> And just for the record, I have a patch that coerces polynomial rings
> in any number of variables into rings with a superset of those
> variables, but its not yet ready for submission.
>
There is an implementation independent method for doing this which is
simply to use
__call__. For this th
How would this work? If sagemath was down or there wasn't a net connection
would there be a weird error? Would it confuse users who could not update
(eg, students using the SAGE notebook in a lab)?
On 5/18/07, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wri
"William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> This is a discussion of update/upgrade notification for SAGE for normal users.
> Feel free to read it and share your thoughts.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
>> Another suggestion I have, automatic notification of major new
>> ver
Pop-up windows about upgrades are really annoying. But a simple text
output of the sort described, that doesn't ask for any input, would be
a good idea I think.
-M.Hampton
On May 18, 11:18 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a discussion of update/upgrade notificati
David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 18, 2007, at 12:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> Wait -- I don't think it is going to fail! I really really like it.
>> I just don't think it will be easy, a magic fix, or anything else
>> like that. I think it won't make what we have now (much
Hi,
This is a discussion of update/upgrade notification for SAGE for normal users.
Feel free to read it and share your thoughts.
-- Forwarded message --
> Another suggestion I have, automatic notification of major new
> version releases:
>
> Say once a week, when you start SAGE,
On May 18, 2007, at 12:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Wait -- I don't think it is going to fail! I really really like it.
> I just don't think it will be easy, a magic fix, or anything else
> like that. I think it won't make what we have now (much) simpler;
> but what it will do is make much m
On 5/18/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 18, 2007, at 11:40 AM, William Stein wrote:
> > There have recently been a few comments that some abstract
> > nonsense is going to magically fix coercion in SAGE. I am pessimistic.
>
> This must be the first time I am more optimistic t
> On 5/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In sage 2.5.0.2 I'm having trouble building maxima's command list
> > (tried this on a linux powerpc machine where I compiled SAGE from the
> > source, as well as an x64 machine with precompiled binaries):
I've fixed this for sage-
On May 18, 2007, at 11:40 AM, William Stein wrote:
> There have recently been a few comments that some abstract
> nonsense is going to magically fix coercion in SAGE. I am pessimistic.
This must be the first time I am more optimistic than William about
something related to SAGE :-)
> The com
On 5/18/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 18, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Michel wrote:
> > Look at
> >
> > sage: Q=FractionField(QQ['x'])
> > sage: x=Q.gen()
> > sage: V=Q['z']
> > sage: z=V.gen()
> > sage: x+z
> > 2*z
> >
> > Any explanations for this?
The attached patch fixes this. T
Just a two remarks:
This is not related to the libSINGULAR:
sage: from sage.rings.multi_polynomial_ring import
MPolynomialRing_polydict_domain
sage: Q=FractionField(MPolynomialRing_polydict_domain(QQ,2,['x','y'],
order='degrevlex'))
sage: x,y=Q.gens()
sage: V=Q['z']
sage: z=V.gen()
sage: x + z
On May 18, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Michel wrote:
>
> Look at
>
> sage: Q=FractionField(QQ['x'])
> sage: x=Q.gen()
> sage: V=Q['z']
> sage: z=V.gen()
> sage: x+z
> 2*z
>
> Any explanations for this?
Basically -- this is my point of view only -- the semantics of
automatic coercions in SAGE are not as
Look at
sage: Q=FractionField(QQ['x'])
sage: x=Q.gen()
sage: V=Q['z']
sage: z=V.gen()
sage: x+z
2*z
Any explanations for this?
Michel
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send ema
Sorry I sent the wrong counterexample:-) I deleted the post but you
were too fast. Now I submitted
the correct example.
Michel
On May 18, 4:33 pm, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Friday 18 May 2007 16:25, Michel wrote:
>
> > sage: Q=FractionField(QQ['x'])
> > sage: x=Q.gens()
> >
On Friday 18 May 2007 16:25, Michel wrote:
> sage: Q=FractionField(QQ['x'])
> sage: x=Q.gens()
> sage: V=Q['z']
> sage: z=V.gen()
> sage: x+z
Thats something different. x is a tuple as gens (note the plural) returns a
tuple.
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/
Now I could reproduce it.
sage: Q=FractionField(QQ['x','y'])
sage: x,y=Q.gens()
sage: V=Q['z']
sage: z=V.gen()
sage: x+z
---
Traceback (most recent call
last)
/home/vdbergh/sage-2.5/ in ()
/home/vdbergh/sage-
I could reproduce it!
sage: Q=FractionField(QQ['x'])
sage: x=Q.gens()
sage: V=Q['z']
sage: z=V.gen()
sage: x+z
: unsupported operand parent(s) for '+':
'' and 'Univariate Polynomial Ring in z over Fraction
Field of Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Rational Field'
A missing automatic coercio
I am running the new libsingular and I get the following
sage: R = PolynomialRing(QQ, ['a','b','c','d','e'], 5)
sage: K = R.fraction_field()
sage: a,b,c,d,e = K.gens()
sage:
sage: ig = 12*a*e-3*b*d+c^2
sage: jg = 72*a*c*e+9*b*c*d-27*a*d^2-27*e*b^2-2*c^3
sage: hg = 8*a*c-3*b^2
sage: deltag = 4*ig^
On 5/17/07, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I'm here, what's the good way to get a column slice? Say the
> moral equivalent of matrix(...)[,:4], which gets the first four
> columns?
Nick -- nice patch. It will be in sage-2.5.1. And, I agree that
calling getitem on range then
> and Q(a). I am not exactly sure what is meant by the latter but
> I assume its a one dimensional algebraic extension of QQ.
>
Yep you are right! Just tried it. I assume you have no intention
implementing
this in libsingular...?
Did you keep the old singular implementation of MPolynomials in the
On Friday 18 May 2007 12:06, Michel wrote:
> As far as I know singular does not have gcd for multivariate
> polynomials over numberfields
> (Martin: is this true?)
The SINGULAR source states that they only support GCDs over:
Q, Fp, Fp(a), and Q(a). I am not exactly sure what is meant by the latte
As far as I know singular does not have gcd for multivariate
polynomials over numberfields
(Martin: is this true?)
but it seems pari does. Is there a reason why this functionality is
not exported to sage (or is it)?
I did a bit of timing and it does not seem to be particularly slow.
I tried gp.gc
41 matches
Mail list logo
