I'd like to bump this thread (and CC it to sage-combinat)...I really do
wonder why the current DyckWords generator uses so much memory, and why
it seems to be slower than the obvious backtracking code.
I have also run into memory problems using the set partitions generator.
Does anybody know what'
Looks like the moderator of the unmoderated gmp-discuss list has
either gone to bed or is not accepting any more submissions on this
topic. I've received no response, not even an automated one to tell me
that it is awaiting moderator approval, as I usually get.
But below is my latest response so
-- Forwarded message --
From: Samuel Gaehwiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:32 AM
Subject: SAGE article in the biggest student magazin at the ETH university
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi William,
as I promised in the SAGE support mailinglist a couple of weeks ago
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Carl Witty wrote:
> cdef unsigned int low = gmp_urandomb_ui(rstate.gmp_state, 32)
> cdef unsigned int high = gmp_urandomb_ui(rstate.gmp_state, 32)
> cdef unsigned long long combined = ((high)<<32)|
> (low)
> values[j] = combined
Doh!
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ti
Hello William,
Sorry for the late response first.No i wasnt using this combination so
far.(meaning at the same time ).
But used both and will try to let them work together.
Will post the result when I m finished with the testing.
Rgds
Gottfried
www.5152.eu
www.wirtschaftswunder.co.uk
Wil
Torbjorn Granlund:
> The other publicly stated reasons are a mixture of
> blatant falsehoods and sinister insinuations.
> This fork exists for some very different reasons than those publicy
> stated.
I know why the fork exists, so I'll state publicly precisely
why the fork exists. The issues bel
On May 29, 9:33 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OSX PPC:
> The new matrix mod2 code is *all wrong* there. Endianess?
>
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix_mod2_dense.pyx
> **
> File "/Users/was/build/sage-3.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Yi Qiang <...
>>
>>
>> Maybe we ought to raise the timeout?
>>
>>> Total time for all tests: 49.5 seconds
>>
>
> Can someone give me access to a fedora8 machine so I try to reproduce
> the bug? We should not need to raise the timeout for this particular
> test.
I
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 29, 6:33 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
>>
>> My 3.03.alpha0 bui
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> this is Sage 3.0.3.alpha0. It looks like we we are continuing our
> somewhat slow development pace while waiting for the coercion
> rewrite to finish. Trac still has a staggering 75+ patches waiting
> for review, so if you can spare a little time it would be nic
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 29, 6:33 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
>>
>> My 3.03.alpha0 bui
On May 29, 6:33 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
> Suse, Itanium: fails; can't build clisp
I forgot this one: I tested on that machine and upgrading to cli
> OSX PPC:
> The new matrix mod2 code is *all wrong* there. Endianess?
Yes, if those are all doctest failures then they are all related to random
numbers. So either I use the the randgen framework wrongly or there is a bug
in there.
Martin
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix_mod2_dense.
On May 29, 6:33 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> > 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
>
> My 3.03.alpha0 build testing:`
>
> Fedora 8, x86_64: pass
> suse, x86_64: pass
> osx10.5 intel: pass
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
My 3.03.alpha0 build testing:`
Fedora 8, x86_64: pass
suse, x86_64: pass
osx10.5 intel: pass
ubuntu32bit: pass
debian32bit: pass
debian 64bit: pass
ubuntu 64bit: pass
Suse, It
3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
John
2008/5/28 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> this is Sage 3.0.3.alpha0. It looks like we we are continuing our
> somewhat slow development pace while waiting for the coercion
> rewrite to finish. Trac still has a staggering 75+ patc
On May 29, 4:14 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
> At first, sage -testall repoted a failure, in twist.py, but on
> retesting it passed:
Thanks for testing. The twist.py pops up occasionally and it seems to
be cause by ports being closed/used - but I am certainly not 100%
At first, sage -testall repoted a failure, in twist.py, but on
retesting it passed:
...
The following tests failed:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/server/simple/twist.py
Total time for all tests: 5024.1 seconds
Please see /home/wdj/sagefiles/sage-3.0.3.alpha0/tmp/test.log for the
complete log
Hi there,
I hope I don't spoil anyone's big announcement of this but the Wiki page for
Sage Days 10 in Nancy, France has this text now:
== Sponsors ==
INRIA
== PhD students attendance support ==
Thanks to funds donated by our sponsors, we are able to support attendance
costs for a small numbe
19 matches
Mail list logo
