Hi,
This is the video from Mike Hansen's talk *today* introducing Sage and
symmetric functions, etc., during the Univ of Washington combinatorics
seminar:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5844171987660560906&hl=en
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Was
On Nov 1, 2007, at 12:14 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0700, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Right now we have (not counting the _c and _impl variants)
>>
>> _rmul_, _irmul_
>> _lmul_, _ilmul_
>> _rmultiply_by_scalar_
>> _lmultiply_by_scalar_
>> _r_act
On Nov 1, 2007, at 12:11 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:00:57 -0700, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The answer is, I believe, yes. Should it rely on the check flag to
>> decide whether or not to try and factor?
>
> Wait, is there a good reason to ever compute
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0700, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now we have (not counting the _c and _impl variants)
>
> _rmul_, _irmul_
> _lmul_, _ilmul_
> _rmultiply_by_scalar_
> _lmultiply_by_scalar_
> _r_action_
> _l_action_
>
> This seems to be redundant. What I am envi
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:00:57 -0700, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The answer is, I believe, yes. Should it rely on the check flag to
> decide whether or not to try and factor?
Wait, is there a good reason to ever compute the discriminant in order to
represent elements of the field?
Right now we have (not counting the _c and _impl variants)
_rmul_, _irmul_
_lmul_, _ilmul_
_rmultiply_by_scalar_
_lmultiply_by_scalar_
_r_action_
_l_action_
This seems to be redundant. What I am envisioning is:
_rmul_, _lmul_, _irmul_, _ilmul_ MUST be called with an element of
the basering, i
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:41:46 -0700, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
>> I'm not sure if _rmul_c_impl is actually allowed to assume that _c is
>> Rational. I think it may be, because the bad _rmul call is made by
>> LeftModuleAction.__init
The answer is, I believe, yes. Should it rely on the check flag to
decide whether or not to try and factor?
- Robert
On Oct 31, 2007, at 11:58 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> You massively sped up quadratic field arithmetic, which is really
> awesome.
> Unfortunately the following
Robert,
You massively sped up quadratic field arithmetic, which is really awesome.
Unfortunately the following is now slow:
sage: p = next_prime(10^24); q = next_prime(10^26); D = p*q; D
sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 - D, check=False)
because in the quadratic field constructor you factor t
On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> William just reported #1044, which I tracked down to the _rmul_c_impl
> method in NumberFieldElement_quadratic. This code had:
> cdef Rational c = _c
> but in this case, _c was actually an Integer.
>
> I'm not sure if _rmul_c_impl is actua
Robert,
As described in
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticaket/1044
in sage-2.8.10 this leads to a segfault:
sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 - 5)
sage: B = K.maximal_order().basis();
sage: -1*B[1]
BOOM!
As does
sage: B[1]*-1
By putting some code to rain an exception in the
number_field_q
Dear Axiom Users and Developers;
Earlier in October Tim Daly asked me if I would be able to move the Axiom wiki:
http://wiki.axiom-developer.org
and the Axiom portal:
http://portal.axiom-developer.org
web applications to a new server. The server where they have resided
for the last th
William just reported #1044, which I tracked down to the _rmul_c_impl
method in NumberFieldElement_quadratic. This code had:
cdef Rational c = _c
but in this case, _c was actually an Integer.
I'm not sure if _rmul_c_impl is actually allowed to assume that _c is
Rational. I think it may
Hi Michael,
You wrote:
>
> It is, but I forgot to mention it in the other thread. The ticket has
> been closed, but it would be great if you could submit the cleanup
> patch for #217 in the next 36 hours.
I submitted a patch bundle on trac #217, which changed back some substitutions
Py_ssize_t
On Oct 31, 9:55 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>
>
> > it should also be noted that the bug Carl mention above seems to be
> > the root cause for #973. I am currently updating to 2.8.10 on my local
> > box (which shows the segfault for dance(10)) to see if the problem
Hi Michael,
>
> it should also be noted that the bug Carl mention above seems to be
> the root cause for #973. I am currently updating to 2.8.10 on my local
> box (which shows the segfault for dance(10)) to see if the problem is
> really fixed. I added some additional info to #973 about this.
>
On 10/31/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So matplotlib depends on Numpy?
Yes.
> > or uses numerical matrices,
>
> I thought we used GSL as a back end, but does it often fall back to
> Numpy then?
We use both numpy and gsl. Numpy is better for certain things.
> > it is very
On Oct 31, 2007, at 12:22 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I can think of lots of "solutions", although I don't know which of
>>> them might be worth the effort.
>>>
>>> 1) a global enable/disable
>>> 2) hook into __import__ to notice imports
On Oct 30, 2007, at 7:16 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Oct 31, 3:11 am, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 10:11 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>>
>>> There is another way that Py_ssize_t differs from int, namely that
>>> Cython casting happens via the
On 10/31/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can think of lots of "solutions", although I don't know which of
> > them might be worth the effort.
> >
> > 1) a global enable/disable
> > 2) hook into __import__ to notice imports of numpy, and turn off the
> > optimization globally i
On Oct 30, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> On Oct 30, 1:48 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> This is due to the inplace operator stuff using refcounts to
>> determine if it's safe to mutate. The simple workaround is to not use
>> numpy arrays of SAGE objects. Another quest
I would like to emphasize the importance of integrating R. I have
given a few sage demonstrations lately, and I think I would have won
over a lot more people if it was included. Since I don't use it
myself, I have not volunteered for it, but I am happy to play a
supporting role testing, etc. It
Hello,
Slides, worksheets, and complete video are posted for Mike Hansen's
talk this Monday at UW on Combinatorial Algebras in Sage:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/sage-uw/sched
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--~--~-~--~-
On Oct 31, 3:19 pm, "Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Ondrej,
> > I would recommend you wait for some reactions until the east & west
> > coast crowd gets up; Then you should write a Sage Enhancement Proposal
> > and even better implement a prototype of your idea so people can play
> I would recommend you wait for some reactions until the east & west
> coast crowd gets up; Then you should write a Sage Enhancement Proposal
> and even better implement a prototype of your idea so people can play
> around with it. If it breaks backward compability it would be a harder
> sell, bu
On Oct 31, 1:50 pm, "Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hello Ondrej,
>
> when I have one particular feature to discuss, should I discuss it
> here, or open a new trac ticket for that?
Something this controversial should be discussed here first. Either
way you should get a trac a
Hi,
when I have one particular feature to discuss, should I discuss it
here, or open a new trac ticket for that?
I am going to discuss it here for now:
summary: infer the name of the spkg package from config file (instead
of the name of the dir)
Currently, when creating a package using
./sage
Hello,
there are two optional spkg in trac against 2.8.11. I cannot up them
myself, so I would like William to get those into the optional spkg
repo. Those two are:
#705[with spkg] Make vtk an easy-to-install optional sage package
#1033 [with optional spkg] biopython 1.44 optional package
> That sounds very good.
> But what would be the advantage of using RPy instead of your pexpect module?
It'd be faster since it integrates with the R library directly.
--Mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
T
That sounds very good.
But what would be the advantage of using RPy instead of your pexpect module?
Greetings, Fabio.
On 10/31/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > What is your opinion?
> > Can anyone unravel details about how this will be implemented? RPy
> maybe?
> I am almost fin
30 matches
Mail list logo
