Hello,
This is the end of the 3.0.1 release cycle. The build was announced
in IRC about eight hours ago, but since I took a long nap in the
meantime I never posted to sage-devel ;)
Gary's pbuild has been improved and three bugs have been fixed.
Please try it out again for feedback. To use pbu
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:41 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think this is interesting too but was unable to compile it nor get
> the binary to work.
>
So I downloaded these two packages for scilab-5.0-beta-1:
http://www.scilab.org/download/5.0-beta-1/prerequirements-scilab-5
On May 3, 6:41 am, tabbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 2, 7:31 pm, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I got it! -IGMPRATIONAL should be -DGMPRATIONAL
> > Do not know where that came from in your package.
>
> > Francois
>
> Indeed; that was a typo in my package introduced when I fi
On May 2, 7:31 pm, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got it! -IGMPRATIONAL should be -DGMPRATIONAL
> Do not know where that came from in your package.
>
> Francois
Indeed; that was a typo in my package introduced when I fixed a
different bug. It would have probably taken me a long time to
On May 3, 1:50 am, Andrzej Giniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> built fine of Arch linux 32 bit without any change, didn't run tests
> yet but will soon...
>
> anyway small off-topic - I was making spkg for R 2.7 and RPy 1.0.2 to
> see if it would work (2.7 have some nice Cairo graphic
Actually, it might be n/log(n) steps, so the time might be something
like n^2 though there are other terms involved.
Bill.
On 3 May, 00:30, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The theoretical complexity of all the algorithms that rely on
> recurrences is supposed to be n^2. But this doesn't t
Hi,
built fine of Arch linux 32 bit without any change, didn't run tests
yet but will soon...
anyway small off-topic - I was making spkg for R 2.7 and RPy 1.0.2 to
see if it would work (2.7 have some nice Cairo graphics driver in
addition to X11 and others, examples from wiki already works), but
I think this is interesting too but was unable to compile it nor get
the binary to work.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Hector Villafuerte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Very interestingly, somebody posted
On May 3, 4:25 am, "Michael Abshoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Timothy G Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I attempted to build the 3.0.1alpha1 packages for Debian, but it doesn't
> > build, apparently due to some type errors. The build log is attached -
The theoretical complexity of all the algorithms that rely on
recurrences is supposed to be n^2. But this doesn't take into account
the size of the numbers themselves. When you do this they are all
about n^3 as far as I can see. You can use Ramanujan identities, the
Akiyama-Tanigawa algorithm, the
Hi!
On May 2, 10:17 pm, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am more or less done my draft of a Sage/Cython article for
> OpenWetWare. I think this is a good minor opportunity to expose a
> different community to Sage. The bioinformatics community is already
> fairly pro-open-source, and Ope
The Sage lab on UW campus has a lot of shelf space :-)
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:43 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 2, 10:28 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > Could we use a bunch on non-SSE
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On May 2, 2008, at 2:39 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 7:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've made a trac ticket for this, since it seems to have got stalled:
>>>
>>>http://tr
I did some computations using von Staudt's theorem and up to 40 no
errors. Of course that doesn't prove anything for much larger n.
Bill.
On 2 May, 21:04, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 20
On May 2, 2008, at 2:39 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 29, 7:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've made a trac ticket for this, since it seems to have got stalled:
>>
>>http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/305
On May 2, 10:28 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On May 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> > Could we use a bunch on non-SSE2 Athlons with
> > decent, i.e. 1GB RAM, this would be doable.
>
> I'm sure the UW Math department has machines that old which we could
> get for
On May 2, 10:34 pm, "didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is some more information about the machine used to compute this:
Hi,
> Hi Didier,
>
> I used Linux, with 64 bit AMD processor:
>
> AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 250
> cpu MHz : 1000.000
> cache size : 1024 KB
Here is some more information about the machine used to compute this:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Oleksandr Pavlyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Today We Broke the Bernoulli Record: From the Analytical
Engine to Mathematica
To: didier deshomm
On May 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On May 2, 8:06 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Steal the CPU detection code from ATLAS and use that to test to
>> see if
>> the processor we're running on is the same as the processor we
>> compiled
One more data point (2.6GHz opteron):
sage: time x = bernoulli(6)
Wall time: 3.79
sage: time x = bernoulli(12)
Wall time: 16.97
sage: time x = bernoulli(24)
Wall time: 118.24
sage: time x = bernoulli(48)
Wall time: 540.25
sage: time x = bernoulli(96)
Wall time: 2436.06
Th
I am more or less done my draft of a Sage/Cython article for
OpenWetWare. I think this is a good minor opportunity to expose a
different community to Sage. The bioinformatics community is already
fairly pro-open-source, and OpenWetWare readers are self-selected to
be more so. Before it is made
Sorry, the y-axis in the lower plot is log(time in seconds).
On Fri, 2 May 2008, David Harvey wrote:
>
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 4:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Funny this should come up. William just gave a take-home midterm
>> in which we had to predict the runtime for various computatio
On May 2, 2008, at 4:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Funny this should come up. William just gave a take-home midterm
> in which we had to predict the runtime for various computations, so
> I wrote some generic code to help. According to my code, and some
> liberal assumptions, it shou
Funny this should come up. William just gave a take-home midterm in which we
had to predict the runtime for various computations, so I wrote some generic
code to help. According to my code, and some liberal assumptions, it should
take 5.1 days. I've attached the plots that show the curves I f
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 3:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > The complexity mostly depends on the precision one uses in
> > computing a certain Euler product approximation to zeta
> > and also the number of factors in the
On May 2, 2008, at 3:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
> The complexity mostly depends on the precision one uses in
> computing a certain Euler product approximation to zeta
> and also the number of factors in the product. If you look
> at the PARI source code the comments do *not* inspire confidence
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 3:40 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > Also, when I tried
> >
> > bernoulli(10^7+2)
> >
> > directly in Sage there were a couple of issues that arose, since
> > that command
> > is much more
On May 2, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I think the asymptotics aren't going to go our way if we use pari. It
> takes 11s for 10^5 and I've been sitting here for quite a few minutes
> and didn't get 10^6 yet.
So far I have on a 2.6GHz opteron:
sage: time x = bernoulli(6)
Wall time:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:10 PM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ok, so the docstring reaveals (1) that the pari version is "by far the
> fastest" as I suspected, but also that for n>5 that we use a gp
> interface rather than the pari library " since the C-library interface
> t
I think the asymptotics aren't going to go our way if we use pari. It
takes 11s for 10^5 and I've been sitting here for quite a few minutes
and didn't get 10^6 yet.
I think pari uses the zeta function to compute bernoulli numbers.
If I'm reading the code right it first computes 1/zeta(n) using t
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:40 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Fredrik Johansson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > Oleksandr Pavlyk reports on the Wolfram Blog that he has computed the
> > 10 millionth Bernoulli number using Mathematica:
>
On May 2, 2008, at 3:40 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Also, when I tried
>
> bernoulli(10^7+2)
>
> directly in Sage there were a couple of issues that arose, since
> that command
> is much more designed for smaller input. I fixed those small issues.
> I guess we'll see in a week ..
I hope
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Fredrik Johansson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oleksandr Pavlyk reports on the Wolfram Blog that he has computed the
> 10 millionth Bernoulli number using Mathematica:
>
> http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/04/29/today-we-broke-the-bernoulli-record-from-the-analyti
Thanks. I thought I had something old, but it's not *that* old!
John
2008/5/2 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On May 2, 9:04 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
> > Now would I know non-SSE hardware if I met it in the wild?
>
> On Linux:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/
On May 2, 9:04 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi John,
> Now would I know non-SSE hardware if I met it in the wild?
On Linux:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/scratch/mabshoff/release-cycle/sage-3.0.1.rc0$ cat /
proc/cpuinfo | grep flags
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 a
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Fredrik Johansson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oleksandr Pavlyk reports on the Wolfram Blog that he has computed the
> 10 millionth Bernoulli number using Mathematica:
>
> http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/04/29/today-we-broke-the-bernoulli-record-from-the-analyti
ok, so the docstring reaveals (1) that the pari version is "by far the
fastest" as I suspected, but also that for n>5 that we use a gp
interface rather than the pari library " since the C-library interface
to PARI
is limited in memory for individual operations" -- whatever that means!
Now would I know non-SSE hardware if I met it in the wild?
John
2008/5/2 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On May 2, 8:06 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> > Steal the CPU detection code from ATLAS and use that to test to see if
> > the proces
I might take a look at this, as there are some ways fo computing B nos
which are very much faster tha others, and not everyone knows them.
Pari has something respectable, certainly.
John
2008/5/2 mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> It takes about 30 seconds on my machine to get the 10^5 Bernoulli
On May 2, 2008, at 2:56 PM, mhampton wrote:
> It takes about 30 seconds on my machine to get the 10^5 Bernoulli
> number. The mathematica blog says it took a "development" version of
> mathematica 6 days to do the 10^7 calc. So it would probably take
> some work, but we are not that badly off
It takes about 30 seconds on my machine to get the 10^5 Bernoulli
number. The mathematica blog says it took a "development" version of
mathematica 6 days to do the 10^7 calc. So it would probably take
some work, but we are not that badly off as is.
-M. Hampton
On May 2, 12:34 pm, Fredrik Joha
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Very interestingly, somebody posted that the next major release of
> SciLab will be
> GPL-compatible. See
> http://www.scilab.org/download/index_download.php?page=CHANGES_5.0-beta-1
>
> This means there is pot
Oleksandr Pavlyk reports on the Wolfram Blog that he has computed the
10 millionth Bernoulli number using Mathematica:
http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/04/29/today-we-broke-the-bernoulli-record-from-the-analytical-engine-to-mathematica/
How does sage's Bernoulli number implementation compare? I'd lik
On May 2, 8:06 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
Hi,
> Steal the CPU detection code from ATLAS and use that to test to see if
> the processor we're running on is the same as the processor we compiled
> for? That seems like a bit much.
You really don't want to do
>> I can try to build a Sage binary on Fedora 3 if you wish
>> but I'm not optimistic. I know that my Fedora 5 could not
>> build Sage because the compiler was too old.
>
>The compiler wasn't too old, it was *borken*, i.e. "internal compiler
>error". IIRC it was some gcc 4.1.0 and as well all know
William Stein wrote:
> Michael and Sage-devel,
>
> This is happening a lot (see below):
>
> > I was trying to create a random matrix with single digit integer
> entries using
> > B = random_matrix(ZZ,100,x=0,x=9)
> >
> > I get the following error and the worksheet seems to break down afte
On May 2, 9:18 pm, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alfredo,
Hi Tim,
> I can try to build a Sage binary on Fedora 3 if you wish
> but I'm not optimistic. I know that my Fedora 5 could not
> build Sage because the compiler was too old.
The compiler wasn't too old, it was *borken*, i.e. "inter
On May 2, 7:56 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael and Sage-devel,
No need to single me out - I read sage-devel ;)
> This is happening a lot (see below):
> We really need to find a way to *immediately* report that
> "this Sage binary doesn't work on your processor" ASA
Alfredo,
I can try to build a Sage binary on Fedora 3 if you wish
but I'm not optimistic. I know that my Fedora 5 could not
build Sage because the compiler was too old. Fedora 3
likely has the same issue.
Tim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send emai
Michael and Sage-devel,
This is happening a lot (see below):
> I was trying to create a random matrix with single digit integer
entries using
> B = random_matrix(ZZ,100,x=0,x=9)
>
> I get the following error and the worksheet seems to break down after that.
> /usr/local/sage/local/bin/s
On 2-May-08, at 9:46 AM, John Voight wrote:
>
> Is there a canonical way to sort elements of an algebraic number
> field? I can think of one or two, but this is a needlessly costly
> thing to do, IMHO.
You're asking for a canonical representation, which amounts to a
canonical choice of a defi
Is there a canonical way to sort elements of an algebraic number
field? I can think of one or two, but this is a needlessly costly
thing to do, IMHO.
JV
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
Hi,
In that reddit discussion of my blog post I mentioned that SciLab
(http://www.scilab.org/) is
released under a custom GPL-incompatible license when somebody asked
about SciLab.
Also I mentioned that SciLab violates the GPL by linking in readline.
Very interestingly, somebody posted that the
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Timothy G Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I attempted to build the 3.0.1alpha1 packages for Debian, but it doesn't
> build, apparently due to some type errors. The build log is attached --
> I'd appreciate any guesses as to what's going on here.
>
>-Tim
fan_0.3-0sagep3~debian4.1 on debuild by sbuild/amd64 0.57.0
Build started at 20080502-1206
**
gfan_0.3-0sagep3.dsc exists in .; copying to chroot
** Using build dependencies supplied by package:
Build-Depends: cdbs (>
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Martin Albrecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FYI: William's ISSAC abstract is on reddit's frontpage right now.
>
> http://reddit.com/info/6hvsn/comments/
>
> Martin
>
Since it seems to spark discussion I posted it to digg:
http://digg.com/software/Can_Th
This looks like a dict was involved at some point - maybe just sorting
the list would be enough?
On May 2, 8:23 am, "Michael Abshoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, the ordering of the elements does not at all affect th
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, the ordering of the elements does not at all affect the
> correctness of the output--the most mathematically correct thing would
> be to output a set. This change can be due to any number of things,
> but it's probably
Yes, the ordering of the elements does not at all affect the
correctness of the output--the most mathematically correct thing would
be to output a set. This change can be due to any number of things,
but it's probably not worth ascertaining the exact cause.
JV
--~--~-~--~~-
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Martin Albrecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FYI: William's ISSAC abstract is on reddit's frontpage right now.
>
> http://reddit.com/info/6hvsn/comments/
>
> Martin
>
Wow, it seems to have definitely touched a nerve.
There are also now a number of comments on
FYI: William's ISSAC abstract is on reddit's frontpage right now.
http://reddit.com/info/6hvsn/comments/
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-
On May 2, 2:02 pm, "Alfredo Portes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the idea to use a Live CD is a very good one. It is good when
> > people have the opportunity to try sage right on the spot.
>
> Is there anyone in
On Apr 29, 10:00 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon's vision of lattices would include the ones I mentioned before
> (f.g. but not necessarily free R-modules where R is a Dedekind Domain,
> with one or more embeddings into RR^n or CC^n).
>
> In another direction: Jon, to what exte
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the idea to use a Live CD is a very good one. It is good when
> people have the opportunity to try sage right on the spot.
Is there anyone in the list that can share binaries of Sage 3.x for
Fedora Core 3 (a higher
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I decided to go ahead and open a ticket for it with a patch for spkg-
> install.
> I noticed that the CXXFLAGS needed a bit of spring cleaning as well.
> The ticket is #3079.
I noticed and saw the CXXFLAGS issue. That puzzle
I decided to go ahead and open a ticket for it with a patch for spkg-
install.
I noticed that the CXXFLAGS needed a bit of spring cleaning as well.
The ticket is #3079.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubsc
John Cremona wrote:
Hi,
> Thanks for the explanations!
>
> For my own build, I recovered by doing "sage -ba" as previously
> reported. So I don't know whether the original problem (running sage
> for the first time after an apparently successful build) was caused by
> the SAGE_PBUILD thing or no
On May 1, 5:01 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> There are two problems here:
>
> a) somebody changed the default 404 error page [we know who did it,
> but no need to name names]
> b) consequently the download_package command fails since it no longer
> recognizes the 404 page
Harald Schilly wrote:
> On May 2, 3:19 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hi,
>> Looks good to me. I think Python is actually in the top 5 languages
>> now, isn't it?
>>
>
> just for completeness, released today:
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10065
> - Readers' Choic
[CC to sage-devel - this email somehow didn't make it on first try :(]
Hi guys,
When I apply both patches from #2755 to my 3.0.1.rc0 merge tree I get
the following failure in totallyreal_rel.py:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py
*
On Apr 29, 7:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
> Hi,
>
> I've made a trac ticket for this, since it seems to have got stalled:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3052
>
> William
Robert,
I have come across a case that
Dear William,
I am sorry about my previous post, since it was out-dated. My comment
did only refer to message number 25 in this thread and to the abstract
version at http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/tmp/abstract.pdf
Now, we have http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/tmp/abstract3.pdf,
Dear William,
On May 2, 12:23 am, "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The previous abstract (the second one?, definitely not the first)
> seemed like a good balance to me: What is Sage? What can it do?
I agree.
The second abstract contains the message (among other things):
1. "If you have
On May 1, 2008, at 5:49 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On May 1, 2008, at 2:51 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I wrote a new version of my ISSAC talk abstract. What do you think:
>>>
>>> http://sage.math.
On May 2, 3:19 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks good to me. I think Python is actually in the top 5 languages
> now, isn't it?
just for completeness, released today: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10065
- Readers' Choice Awards 2008 / Favorite Scripting Language: Python
Thanks for the explanations!
For my own build, I recovered by doing "sage -ba" as previously
reported. So I don't know whether the original problem (running sage
for the first time after an apparently successful build) was caused by
the SAGE_PBUILD thing or not. Before doing "sage -ba" I also d
76 matches
Mail list logo
