On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 10:47:59PM -0700, cesarnda wrote:
>
> I do the following in cython:
>
> for index1 from 0 <= index1 < size:
> vectorGen[index1] = 0
>
> vectorGen[0] = -1
>
> #main for for obtaining the whole set
> for index from 0 <= index < limit:
I do the following in cython:
for index1 from 0 <= index1 < size:
vectorGen[index1] = 0
vectorGen[0] = -1
#main for for obtaining the whole set
for index from 0 <= index < limit: #for1
localLimit = ceil( index / modulus )
value = vectorGen[0] + 1
Mike,
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
> There is a patch up at
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/4036/trac_4036-2.patch
> which improves conversions between Axiom and Sage. It defaults
> to your unparsed input form if it can't find anything smarter to do
Hi there,
below a couple of quick comments:
> def coerce_ring_from_singular(r):
> cha=str(r.charstr())
> vars=str(r.varstr()).rsplit(',')
> ch=cha.partition(',')[0]
> if ch=='real':
> fiel=RR
> elif ch=='0':
> fiel=QQ
> elif ch=='complex':
> fiel=C
hi, some time ago since my last report on website statistics. i'll
only write about the more "interesting" things for now. data is about
a single day or the last 2 weeks.
0. to make you paranoid, i've added tracking code to trac and the
wiki, i'll tell you later more about this ;)
1. more tr
Ok, here is a revised version. I think i solved pretty much all of the
previous problems, except for considering the orderings. I will work
on that tomorrow. Again, i would like to hear what you think about it.
Just one comment in case you decide to include it in the sage code. I
think the best o
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:12 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is unfortunate:
>
> sage: R256=RealField(256)
> sage: R256('1.2')
> 1.200
> sage: R256(1.2)
> 1.1999555910790149937383830547332763671
On Sunday 07 September 2008, mmarco wrote:
> Martin Albrecht ha escrito:
> > Hi Miguel,
> >
> > can you be convinced to work on it some more?
>
> Sure
>
Hi there,
> I will take a look at it, considering your comments. The reason why i
> didn't use most of what you suggested is because i didn't kn
Martin Albrecht ha escrito:
> Hi Miguel,
>
> can you be convinced to work on it some more?
Sure
I will take a look at it, considering your comments. The reason why i
didn't use most of what you suggested is because i didn't know about
it (i am new to sage). I will take a look at it and try to w
Hi Miguel,
can you be convinced to work on it some more?
1) Local orderings are fully supported in Sage. Take a look at
sage/rings/polynomial/term_order
where you'll also find a dictionary with mappings from Singular term order
names to Sage term order names (and vice versa).
2) Your co
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:40 AM, mathieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
>
> An attenpt to install sage 3.1.1 has failed on a linux
> system:
> Linux mammitum 2.6.25.5-1.1-pae #1 SMP 2008-06-07 01:55:22 +0200 i686
> i686 i386 GNU/Linux
> CPUinfo gives:
> processor : 3
> vendor_id : Gen
An attenpt to install sage 3.1.1 has failed on a linux
system:
Linux mammitum 2.6.25.5-1.1-pae #1 SMP 2008-06-07 01:55:22 +0200 i686
i686 i386 GNU/Linux
CPUinfo gives:
processor : 3
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 2
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CP
I have written this function that transforms a singular ring into the
corresponding sage ring. As far as i can tell it works fine with
polynomial rings over the real, complex, rationals and finite fields,
and algebraic extensions of them. It doesn't consider the monomial
ordering though (i haven't
Hi folks,
at #4070 there is now an updated spkg and a patch which should fix all
the known PolyBoRi issues. There are more things to be fixed in other
places, so stay tuned for rc1 later on tonight.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, sen
On Sep 7, 8:57 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 8:43 am, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Everything fails for me on OS X 10.5, intel. Every test has the
> > following sort of stuff:
>
>
>
> The above fix also fixes this issue.
>
> > -M. Hampton
>
> *But* at exit we
On Sep 7, 8:43 am, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everything fails for me on OS X 10.5, intel. Every test has the
> following sort of stuff:
The above fix also fixes this issue.
> -M. Hampton
*But* at exit we get a lot of
python(77859) malloc: *** error for object 0x2b73bf0: Non-al
Everything fails for me on OS X 10.5, intel. Every test has the
following sort of stuff:
File "/Users/mh/sagestuff/sage-3.1.2.rc0/local/lib/python2.5/site-
packages/sage/all_cmdline.py", line 14, in
from sage.all import *
File "/Users/mh/sagestuff/sage-3.1.2.rc0/local/lib/python2.5/site
And the valgrind issue goes away if we link the pbori.pyx statically
with libpolybori.a,libpboriCudd.a and libgroebner.a. To do that delete
all ibpolybori*[so|dylib]*,libpboriCudd.*[so|dylib]* and
libgroebner.*[so|dylib]* and then rebuild sage/rings/polynomial/
pbori.pyx. Then the error is gone:
Sorry for all the noise, but this seems related:
==9379== 1,826,562 (64 direct, 1,826,498 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks
are definitely lost in loss record 10,699 of 14,342
==9379==at 0x4A1C649: operator new(unsigned long)
(vg_replace_malloc.c:230)
==9379==by 0x13DD9B53:
polybori::CDDManager
Ok,
it is the new PolyBoRi:
==671== Invalid read of size 8
==671==at 0x1417F2C4: __tcf_1 (CCuddCore.h:159)
==671==by 0x4FEEB8C: exit (in /lib/libc-2.3.6.so)
==671==by 0x4A6D11: handle_system_exit (pythonrun.c:1620)
==671==by 0x4A6F08: PyErr_PrintEx (pythonrun.c:1064)
==671==b
On Sep 7, 6:44 am, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > This one passed every time I tried it separately:
> > sage -t devel/sage/sage/rings/bernoulli_mod_p.pyx
>
> I had the same problem with
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4066
Hmm, I do not see how this could cause t
> This one passed every time I tried it separately:
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/rings/bernoulli_mod_p.pyx
I had the same problem with
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4066
Cheers,
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_ww
On 64-bit the only problem I had was with interfaces/lisp.py which is known.
On 32-bit there was more:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/stats/hmm/chmm.pyx
sage -t devel/sage/sage/stats/hmm/hmm.pyx
sage -t devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/monsky_washnitzer.py
sage
This is unfortunate:
sage: R256=RealField(256)
sage: R256('1.2')
1.200
sage: R256(1.2)
1.1999555910790149937383830547332763671875000
It's easy to see why this happens: the last input line pre
Hi,
>> RPy2 is almost out -
>
> Any idea about the timeframe?
alpha3 is out and it looks like mostly ready, it's already quite
usable, probably beta really soon (seems like week looking at previous
releases but there might be another alpha in between also)... they
work on it in rpy_nextgen branc
Two single but different testlong failures on two different hardy
x86_64 boxes. I wacked the local logs and screens before I captured
them to paste here. kinda cashing so here are the links to the
logs...
http://www.tarbox.org/sage/hq2.tar.bz2
http://www.tarbox.org/sage/noc1.tar.bz2
-glenn
O
Hello,
> A float, once computed, is insensitive to "digits". I don't think it even
> knows it's precision, but that should be very easy to change.
Being able to figure out how many bits of precision a particular Float
has would be useful.
>> * Given a domain like "Polynomial Integer", how do I
Hi Mike,
I try to answer the questions, hoping that I do not make a mistake...
"Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Is there only one global precision for floating point numbers or can
> different floating point numbers each have different precisions? What
> happens if you create a nu
Hello,
There is a patch up at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/4036/trac_4036-2.patch
which improves conversions between Axiom and Sage. It defaults to
your unparsed input form if it can't find anything smarter to do.
Bill, if you're interested, this would be one area that wo
29 matches
Mail list logo
