On Dec 29, 2007, at 9:15 PM, Robert Hanson wrote:
> I'm a bit lost on this thread, but I wanted to respond to the
> binary/multiple file issue.
>
> First, it's a fine idea to create a binary Pmesh file format. If we do
> that, though, let's not rush into it and just "create a binary
> equivalen
I'm a bit lost on this thread, but I wanted to respond to the
binary/multiple file issue.
First, it's a fine idea to create a binary Pmesh file format. If we do
that, though, let's not rush into it and just "create a binary equivalent
of a Pmesh file." If this is really useful, then let's create
Scientific Computing Platform?
Tim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-deve
I am in the process of putting together some marketing materials for
Sage and I need something more descriptive than just calling Sage
"math software".
Since I started using Sage around a year ago, I have been trying to
figure out how to categorize it. I discovered Sage through this
Computer Alg
The issue is that since Sage uses pari to do everything in the background,
one needs to create the pari data structures, which means that you currently
call nfinit on the number field, which computes the class group and unit
group. This should change eventually, but right now...
David
On Dec 29,
As John Cremona said at the sage.forum: "But why would Sage be
computing the class group in order to factor 2 in K?"
For me that is strange too. Since it would be easier to compute the
factorization of an ideal generate by a prime.
For example: Using the Proposition that asserts that if K is a
It presumably can't compute the class group, because of the proof=true
thing. Basically if you want a proven result, it is going to take
forever and will need more primes than Pari has precomputed.
It's not clear to me if SAGE is actually catching the error message,
or if it is just raising an ex
On Dec 29, 9:17 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I am working at my Number Theory lectures and I have found a bug (?). This is
> the output:
>
> /// SAGE 2.9.1 ///
> sage: K.=CyclotomicField(23)
> sage: O=K.maximal_order()
> sage: (2*O).factor()
> *
On Dec 29, 8:56 pm, "Alfredo Portes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007 3:34 AM, mabshoff
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since Sage is effectively (or, rather much more effectively) using
> > > the same strategy of making all of the systems available I thought
> > > it might
Hello folks,
I more or less wasted the last 2.5 days on a Cygwin port of Sage
2.9.1.1. I fixed many bugs & build issues, but in the end something
odd prevented me from importing any of the sage modules. I blogged
about the details [which are on planet Sage right now], so no point in
bitching and
On Dec 29, 2007 3:34 AM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since Sage is effectively (or, rather much more effectively) using
> > the same strategy of making all of the systems available I thought
> > it might be worthwhile to update the document with Sage information.
> > You might conside
William wrote:
> >> I thought that chart was crazy until a few days ago when I visited
> >> a friend
> >> of my wife who lives in Phoenix who teaches high school and community
> >> college mathematics (he is a Russian with a masters from U of A).
> >> The world of "math computation" for them is w
Hello everyone,
I'm forwarding a conversation I had yesterday with Ondrej Certik. I didn't
change anything (wouldn't make any sense I think).
It's just some things I'd like to know, and probably everybody's busy, so I
apologize for the time taken.
Thanks in advance.
Best wishes, Fabio
--
Hello,
I'm having trouble implementing arithmetic for BooleanMonomials, which
are elements of a monoid.
Multiplication of BooleanMonomials work fine using the coercion model,
but the following doesn't work, since there is no coercion from ZZ to
BooleanMonomialMonoid.
sage: P. = BooleanPolynomia
On Dec 29, 10:16 am, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >What distribution license does the rosetta tex file have?
>
> >> Modified BSD.
>
> >> I'd like Sage to be in the list so people from other systems
> >> can have a clue what form they might type in Sage to get
> >> similar results.
>
> >I
>> >What distribution license does the rosetta tex file have?
>>
>> Modified BSD.
>>
>> I'd like Sage to be in the list so people from other systems
>> can have a clue what form they might type in Sage to get
>> similar results.
>
>I was wondering why the Rosetta document lists GMP as a system?
I
16 matches
Mail list logo
