> (2) There are some issues remaining with the new SAGE notebook:
>(a) Auto-opening of next available port needs to be implemented
>(b) I suspect running two SAGE notebooks from the same directory
> might not correctly give a lock message.
I'll give (a) a shot -- dun
Hi,
Thanks for all the feedback from everybody about symbolic variables,
special functions, etc. For now (i.e., the very near term), I think
the best thing to do is:
(1) remove all predefined *symbolic* variables except x,
leave in e, pi, and I:
-- everybody basically wants th
> 2007/7/7, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So I propose that the only symbolic variables that are predefined
> > are x (since it's so useful to have this predefined), I (=sqrt(-1)),
> > and e (=2.7...).
I myself prefer to import everything by hand in Python. Thus the sage
module can have
On 7/8/07, Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some ideas:
> > 1. Assuimg Axiom becomes part of SAGE, all Axiom patches are
> > to be voted on democratically among the Axiom deveopers.
> > (Majority rules.)
>
> > Any comments on any of this?
>
> Do you work in sage like that "majority rul
On 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey William, can you set up a mercurial server to serve up the branch that
> you'll most likely release?
>
Yes, that's maybe a good idea, though this directory has *everything* needed
to upgrade to sage-2.7.alpha, along with a README.txt
Hello all:
Recently there as been a divisive discussion on the Axiom
deveopers list which has led to an Axiom fork. Two lead developers,
Martin Rubey and Waldek Hebisch quit. Both are extraordinarily talented
programmers and Martin is the author of GUESS, a unique and
important package which I de
Hey William, can you set up a mercurial server to serve up the branch that
you'll most likely release?
Also, what are you waiting for? Is there a todo list that other people can
help with?
The mozilla people have a "nightly build" that they suggest you download and
test before reporting a bu
2007/7/8, Hamptonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> My biases are probably based on using mathematica for 17 years, but I
> like the way it handles numerical vs symbolic computations. So at
> present, in sage, sin(1) is symbolic, and sin(1.0) is numerical, and
+1, I like this behavior as well. And I li
My biases are probably based on using mathematica for 17 years, but I
like the way it handles numerical vs symbolic computations. So at
present, in sage, sin(1) is symbolic, and sin(1.0) is numerical, and
this I think is good. What I think is bad is that something like
1.0*sin(1) is not numerica
On 7/8/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/7/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm happy with the
> > Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons license:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
> > I think there is also a GPL Documentation license which
On 7/7/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm happy with the
> Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons license:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
> I think there is also a GPL Documentation license which is
> similar.
>
> +
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
