On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:08:40 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
>> On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Under the way I've implemented this, the
>>> action on the list [1,...,n] is trivially
>>> isomorphic to the group structure. You
>>> seem to be using a l
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
>
> On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Under the way I've implemented this, the
>> action on the list [1,...,n] is trivially
>> isomorphic to the group structure. You
>> seem to be using a left-action which
> ^^^
>
> I am us
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Under the way I've implemented this, the
> action on the list [1,...,n] is trivially
> isomorphic to the group structure. You
> seem to be using a left-action which
^^^
I am using a left action.
> doesn't really go well with the nota
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
> Applying the permutation (1,2,3)(4,5) to [0,1,2,3,4]
> should either move the entry in position 1 (which happens
> to be called "0") to position 2, so that the output looks like
> [*,0,*,*,*]
> or if we do some weird 1-based thing, it would always
>
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
>
> On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In particular, how does applying (1,2,3)(4,5) to [0,1,2,3,4]
>>> result in what you claim, i.e., in [1, 2, 0, 4, 3]?
>>> It should either be an error, or maybe:
>>>[2,0,1,3,4]
>>> if s
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In particular, how does applying (1,2,3)(4,5) to [0,1,2,3,4]
> > result in what you claim, i.e., in [1, 2, 0, 4, 3]?
> > It should either be an error, or maybe:
> >[2,0,1,3,4]
> > if say (1,2,3)(4,5) sends the "first entry", i.e., 0t
> In particular, how does applying (1,2,3)(4,5) to [0,1,2,3,4]
> result in what you claim, i.e., in [1, 2, 0, 4, 3]?
> It should either be an error, or maybe:
>[2,0,1,3,4]
> if say (1,2,3)(4,5) sends the "first entry", i.e., 0th position
> to the 1st, the 1st to 2nd, etc,
That's what is going
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The expected output is incorrect; the actual output is correct.
From irc:
20:24 < mabshoff> Sucks, but also re #750:
20:24 < mabshoff> File "permgroup_element.py", line 323:
20:24 < mabshoff> sage: g([0,1,2,3,4])
20:24 < mabshoff>
On Nov 2, 5:29 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello boothby,
> The expected output is incorrect; the actual output is correct.
Okay, I am fixing the doctest then.
We are planning an rc2 in a couple hours if William and I get it to
compile on 10.5 without the need for manual interaction. We are
The expected output is incorrect; the actual output is correct.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, mabshoff wrote:
>
> I have released 2.8.11.rc1 (sorry, I skipped rc0, by the time I
> realized the problem I had already called it rc1 in trac) at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/sage-2.8.11.rc
On Oct 29, 6:13 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> BugDay5 is now planned for Saturday, November 3rd, 2007. Official
> start will be 10am PST, but as usual people from European time zones
> or the east coast might start earlier and finish a little sooner.
>
>
I have released 2.8.11.rc1 (sorry, I skipped rc0, by the time I
realized the problem I had already called it rc1 in trac) at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/sage-2.8.11.rc1.tar
It passes testall on sage.math, but I would like to get some build
feedback on OSX 10.4, both PPC and Int
Hello SAGEists.
We're having a Python and free software seminar here at CIMAT (http://
www.cimat.mx unfortunately Spanish-only at the moment), and it would
be very nice if we could invite someone prominent within SAGE
development to give us a talk, if only to wash away the bad aftertaste
of the M
On 11/1/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe doesn't need a trac ticket?
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Observe the mistaken comma:
> >
> > sage: factor(next_prime(ZZ(2)**45), next_prime(ZZ(3)**30))
> > --
> > --
> > ---
Pardon my replying to myself...
It is also true that I implemented much the same in gp, and that
*does* have a sage interface. For example,
sage: EllipticCurve(GF(10007),[1,2,3,4,5]).abelian_group()
(Multiplicative Abelian Group isomorphic to C5038 x C2,
((9698 : 153 : 1), (8590 : 2742 : 1)))
[This is still somehow attached to the off-list thread "Sage Days 6 --
but I don;t know how to change that other than by starting a new
thread!]
NTL has a class ZZ_p for integers modulo (a prime) p, which I use in
mwrank for various classes which implement elliptic curve arithmetic
over those pri
On Tuesday 30 October 2007, John Cremona wrote:
> I agree about not rewriting for the sake of it -- but this was on the
> to-do list for SD5, wasn't it? Perhaps the to-do is to implement over
> GF(q) what we already have over GF(p).
> > *only* because I did not have access to other finite fields
On Nov 1, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
> Maybe doesn't need a trac ticket?
>
> Nick
>
> Observe the mistaken comma:
>
> sage: factor(next_prime(ZZ(2)**45), next_prime(ZZ(3)**30))
> --
> --
> ---
> Traceback (
Maybe doesn't need a trac ticket?
Nick
Observe the mistaken comma:
sage: factor(next_prime(ZZ(2)**45), next_prime(ZZ(3)**30))
---
Traceback (most recent call
last)
/Users/ncalexan/Documents/School/MATH235/groe
On Nov 1, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> On Oct 31, 11:41 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
>>> 2) The automatic detection of possible actions scares me. It seems
>>> fragile and overly magical. Would it be possible to disa
On 10/28/07, Bobby Moretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, accidentally hit send before I wrote anything :).
>
> When upgrading to 2.8.9, the upgrade halts with the output
>
> /bin/sed: can't read /home/bob/sage-2.8.7/local/lib/libgmp.la: No such
> file or directory
Having the same problem
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 Oct 31, 11:41 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> > 2) The automatic detection of possible actions scares me. It seems
> > fragile and overly magical. Would it be possible to disable this
> > (which would presumably slow things bac
mabshoff wrote:
> I have released 2.8.11.alpha0 at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/sage-2.8.11.alpha0.tar
>
> It passes testall on sage.math, but I would like to get some build
> feedback on OSX 10.4, both PPC and Intel flavors, as well as 32 bit
> Linux. I plan to release 2.8
On 11/1/07, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Usually, if we choose an implementation for a particular functionality, we try
> to make sure to always pick the best implementation available. However, this
> choice only applies to those systems we ship (singular, gap, pari ...) and
> not
On Nov 1, 12:20 pm, "Joel B. Mohler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2.8.11.alpha0 builds and seems to run fine on my gentoo 32-bit machine.
> However, I have this one failed doc-test (which appears to basically be a
> precision issue):
>
> sage -t devel/sage-main/sage/lfunctions/lcalc.py
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 05:03:03AM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
>
> I have released 2.8.11.alpha0 at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/sage-2.8.11.alpha0.tar
>
> It passes testall on sage.math, but I would like to get some build
> feedback on OSX 10.4, both PPC and Intel flavors, as w
That's exactly the sort of use which I had in mind.
There is a possible danger that if lots of papers cite Sage for the
computations (which of course we hope they will do), when the "hard"
part of the computation was done in one of the component packages,
then the writers of that package might fe
John Cremona wrote:
> This doesn't exactly answer your question, but I think it would be
> useful (or at least interesting) if setting some global flag would
> cause Sage to report which external (or internal 3rd party) packages
> were used in reaching a result. But perhaps that is unrealistic si
This doesn't exactly answer your question, but I think it would be
useful (or at least interesting) if setting some global flag would
cause Sage to report which external (or internal 3rd party) packages
were used in reaching a result. But perhaps that is unrealistic since
a long computation might
Hi there,
I gave my talk to the PhD seminar here at Royal Holloway today and I stressed
the fact that Sage is a unified interface to many math packages quite a lot.
This provoked the follow feature request/suggestion I was quick to turn down.
However, this should forward to all Sage developers
On 01 Nov 2007 12:54:00 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | new sites now. They can be found at:
> |
> | http://axiom-wiki.newsynthesis.org
> |
> | and
> |
> | http://axiom-portal.newsynthesis.org
>
> What will happen to the email [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:03:23 -0700, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/1/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I have released 2.8.11.alpha0 at
>>
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/sage-2.8.11.alpha0.tar
>>
>> It passes testall on sage.math, but I would like to
On 11/1/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have released 2.8.11.alpha0 at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/sage-2.8.11.alpha0.tar
>
> It passes testall on sage.math, but I would like to get some build
> feedback on OSX 10.4, both PPC and Intel flavors, as well as 32 bit
mabshoff wrote:
> I have released 2.8.11.alpha0 at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/sage-2.8.11.alpha0.tar
>
> It passes testall on sage.math, but I would like to get some build
> feedback on OSX 10.4, both PPC and Intel flavors, as well as 32 bit
> Linux. I plan to release 2.8.
Dear Dr. Dumas,
I've encountered a build problem in Givaro 3.2.6 on MacOS X 10.5. The
uint type used in src/kernel/zpz/givzpz32std.inl for example is not
available unless sys/types.h is included. The following patch fixes
the problem for me:
--- src/kernel/system/givbasictype.h.ORIG 2
I have released 2.8.11.alpha0 at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/sage-2.8.11.alpha0.tar
It passes testall on sage.math, but I would like to get some build
feedback on OSX 10.4, both PPC and Intel flavors, as well as 32 bit
Linux. I plan to release 2.8.11 final by late Friday night
Many thanks William and Mike for recording and
uploading these!
On 11/1/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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:
ok, I'm happy!
On 01/11/2007, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/1/07, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In my opinion construction of the field, in order to able to do basic
> > arithmetic in it, should not require any checking other than that the
> > defining polynomia
On 11/1/07, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion construction of the field, in order to able to do basic
> arithmetic in it, should not require any checking other than that the
> defining polynomial is irreducible -- in this case, whether D is a
> square. Only if you need the r
In my opinion construction of the field, in order to able to do basic
arithmetic in it, should not require any checking other than that the
defining polynomial is irreducible -- in this case, whether D is a
square. Only if you need the ring of integers should it be necessary
to do the extra work
41 matches
Mail list logo
