On 10/3/07, Soroosh Yazdani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think what you're saying makes sense. Maybe introduce a method
> fractionalideal, specific to number fields?
It should be
K.fractional_ideal(...)
I agree. I've opened a trac ticket (and accepted it):
http://sagetrac.org/sage
On 10/3/07, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Personally I am strongly in favor of this behavior. I hate things
> > taking up screen real estate at the expense of what I am working on.
> > I use the stuff at the top rarely enough that it feels like a waste to
> > be forced to see it all th
On 10/3/07, Nils Bruin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A small enhancement that may be useful for people: since sage known
> about source file and line number of nearly any piece of code in sage,
> why not let sage open an editor window for you?
>
> Currently only works from the command line:
>
> h
Hey Joel,
So I asked Robert about this earlier. He'll probably reply pretty
soon, but I think he's currently on a plane, so I'll tell you what I
learned. There was definitely something going wrong with coercion,
i.e. the appearance of a base_extend call -- I think the issue was
that the m
Hi,
It would have been nice to sit down in person with Robert and/or William about
this at Clay, but I only fully realized the extent of my questions about 1.5
hours before I wanted to leave :). Anyhow, the matrix multiplication process
is looking a bit inefficient to me.
Here's the situatio
A small enhancement that may be useful for people: since sage known
about source file and line number of nearly any piece of code in sage,
why not let sage open an editor window for you?
Currently only works from the command line:
http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/768
Please try it out and i
> With this fix, the function I was writing will be about 10 times faster
> than the Mathematica equivalent on my test case instead of just being
> the same speed as Mathematica :). Thanks!
Cool!
> Mathematica is still ~20x faster (.04 seconds for the code above), but
> now things are much more
Mike Hansen wrote:
> On 10/3/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10/3/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Does anyone have a clue why constructing subsets might be so slow?
>>>
>>> $ sage
>>> --
>>> | SAGE
Hamptonio wrote
> Personally I am strongly in favor of this behavior. I hate things
> taking up screen real estate at the expense of what I am working on.
> I use the stuff at the top rarely enough that it feels like a waste to
> be forced to see it all the time.
I agree with this. I like havi
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Steffen wrote:
> Ok,
>
> now I know a little bit what Sage is, at least it has its own syntax
> and can be integrated into Python. My problem is now that I need to
> implement this multivariate polynomial stuff in the NS-2 network
> simulator which is written in C++.
On 10/3/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/3/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have a clue why constructing subsets might be so slow?
> >
> > $ sage
> > --
> > | SAGE Version 2.8.5.1
Jason Grout wrote:
> Does anyone have a clue why constructing subsets might be so slow?
>
> $ sage
> --
> | SAGE Version 2.8.5.1, Release Date: 2007-09-26 |
> | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for i
On 10/3/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a clue why constructing subsets might be so slow?
>
> $ sage
> --
> | SAGE Version 2.8.5.1, Release Date: 2007-09-26 |
> | Type notebook()
Does anyone have a clue why constructing subsets might be so slow?
$ sage
--
| SAGE Version 2.8.5.1, Release Date: 2007-09-26 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
--
John Voight wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
Hello John,
> I've asked for a few pari functions in SAGE, and now I'm about to ask
> for another: I need nfrootsof1.
>
> For my own edumacation, I'd slightly prefer if someone were to show me
> how to do it. I can't seem to follow Martin's write-up in the
>
Personally I am strongly in favor of this behavior. I hate things
taking up screen real estate at the expense of what I am working on.
I use the stuff at the top rarely enough that it feels like a waste to
be forced to see it all the time.
Just my 2 cents and +1,
Marshall
On Oct 3, 10:01 am, [E
William Stein wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I get the following errors:
[snip]
>> I think it may have to do with
>> http://www.sagemath.org//packages/standard/list listing
>> flint-0.2.p3.spkg _and_ flint-0.2.p4.spkg, but only the p4 spkg is
>> available on the web
Wait a minute! Your changes have made it so the topbar scrolls with the rest
of the page. I find this to be rather obnoxious, since one needs to scroll to
the top to say, restart a process which doesn't want to be interrupted and is
spitting out a thousand lines a second.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007
Ok,
now I know a little bit what Sage is, at least it has its own syntax
and can be integrated into Python. My problem is now that I need to
implement this multivariate polynomial stuff in the NS-2 network
simulator which is written in C++. The only thing that I could find is
a discussion about t
Hi,
I am the guy who asked the question in the LiDIA mailing list. Yes,
Z_q means the finite field F(p), so I will look have a look at Sage.
Cheers, Steffen
On 2 Okt., 03:26, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/1/07, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This came int
I think what you're saying makes sense. Maybe introduce a method
fractionalideal, specific to number fields?
Soroosh
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:44:49AM -0400, David Harvey wrote:
> I find this very confusing:
>
> sage: F. = QuadraticField(-5)
> sage: F.ideal(6)
> Fractional ideal (6) of Number F
I find this very confusing:
sage: F. = QuadraticField(-5)
sage: F.ideal(6)
Fractional ideal (6) of Number Field in a with defining polynomial
x^2 + 5
sage: QQ.ideal(6)
Principal ideal (1) of Rational Field
This means that if I write code that can work over an arbitrary
number field, I have
> Hey Ondrej,
>
> Yeah, I don't think the symbolic stuff was really designed with that
> in mind. Your best bet would be to go through the symbolic types in
> calculus/calculus.py and add a _recursive_sub_expression(self,
> to_match, replacement).
I see. Unfortunately I don't have time at the m
On 10/3/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I get the following errors:
>
> $ sage -upgrade
> Using SAGE Server http://www.sagemath.org//packages
> http://www.sagemath.org//packages/install --> install
> [.]
> http://www.sagemath.org//packages/standard/list --> list
> [.]
> http://www.s
I get the following errors:
$ sage -upgrade
Using SAGE Server http://www.sagemath.org//packages
http://www.sagemath.org//packages/install --> install
[.]
http://www.sagemath.org//packages/standard/list --> list
[.]
http://www.sagemath.org//packages/standard/deps --> deps
[..]
http://www.sagemath.
Looks good in linux & ff/opera. I'll check out windows & mac tomorrow.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
> I made a few changes to the CSS/HTML for the notebook as an initial
> foray to cleaning it up a bit. I've posted a patch at
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/
26 matches
Mail list logo
