On Dec 30, 5:06 pm, "Bill Page" wrote:
> Is there any way to kill the WARNING ?
rm local/lib/sage-flags.txt
> Regards,
> Bill Page.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from t
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:36 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> ...
>> Then I tried
>>
>> p...@billpage:~$ wget
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/linux/64bit/sage-3.2.1-Debian_x86_64-opteron-x86_64-Linux.tar.gz
>> billpage:~# cd sage-3.2.1-Debian
On Dec 30, 4:19 pm, Tim Lahey wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:13 PM, mabshoff wrote:
Hi,
> > g95 is a gfortran fork which used to be better in the gcc 4.0/4.1
> > timeframe, but has seriously fallen behind gfortran these days IMHO.
> > But I am not a Fortran compiler expert, so some people mig
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:13 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> g95 is a gfortran fork which used to be better in the gcc 4.0/4.1
>> timeframe, but has seriously fallen behind gfortran these days IMHO.
>> But I am not a Fortran compiler expert, so
On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:13 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>
> g95 is a gfortran fork which used to be better in the gcc 4.0/4.1
> timeframe, but has seriously fallen behind gfortran these days IMHO.
> But I am not a Fortran compiler expert, so some people might disagree.
> I would strongly vote for gettin
On Dec 30, 3:56 pm, "Bill Page" wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:37 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> > Well, blame VMWare then. The tuning process died - that is usually
> > not a software problem.
>
> I don't mind blaming VMWare, but that doesn't solve my problem. :-)
>
> Actually in recent months I
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:37 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 3:13 pm, William Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> > Michael,
>>
>> > This "tuning" stuff seems to take an unusually long time... :-(
>>
>> That's because the hardware is so new that there is no s
On Dec 30, 3:41 pm, "William Stein" wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:37 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> > I have had no problem at all building ATLAS on the new sage.math
> > repeatedly. And it doesn't take "at least four hours".
>
> > Well, technically it does.
>
> I was allowing for the fact that
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:37 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 30, 3:13 pm, "William Stein" wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Bill Page
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Michael,
>>
>> > This "tuning" stuff seems to take an unusually long time... :-(
>>
>> That's because the hardware is so new that
On Dec 30, 3:13 pm, "William Stein" wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>
> > Michael,
>
> > This "tuning" stuff seems to take an unusually long time... :-(
>
> That's because the hardware is so new that there is no support in
> ATLAS for it. Expect it to take at least
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:13 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> You might be able to use a binary of sage just fine in the meantime.
>> There's one in /usr/local/sage/dist/ on sage.math, which might work.
>> It's build for Ubuntu, but might work o
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:13 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> You might be able to use a binary of sage just fine in the meantime.
> There's one in /usr/local/sage/dist/ on sage.math, which might work.
> It's build for Ubuntu, but might work on that debian 64-bit machine
> you have.
>
> -- william
>
Hi,
If you're into algebraic geometry and strongly interested in coming to
the Sage Days at MSRI March 9 - 12 (see
http://wiki.sagemath.org/days14), then please send me an email at
wst...@gmail.com. I don't exactly have funding yet, but if I had a
group of people needing funding, I may be able t
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> This "tuning" stuff seems to take an unusually long time... :-(
That's because the hardware is so new that there is no support in
ATLAS for it. Expect it to take at least 4 hours, if it works at all.
> I am running this on a vi
Michael,
This "tuning" stuff seems to take an unusually long time... :-(
I am running this on a virtual machine with 2 Gb. memory:
p...@billpage:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 29
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CP
>>Could you please elaborate (in technical terms) what is wrong in
>>principle with our Risch algorithm implementation, apart that it needs
>>fixing for integrals that it cannot yet do? Or is the approach we took
>>with sympy not the right one to get the symbolic integration done.
>>
>>If Sage dev
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:04 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 30, 1:58 pm, "Bill Page" wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
>> I've got a build failure in Atlas on Debian. Any ideas?
>>
>> ---
>> p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ cat /etc/issue
>> Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 \n \l
>>
>> p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ cat /e
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:18 PM, mhampton wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have a small issue that I would like an official opinion on. Should
> proper names in functions be lower-case? For example, if you are
> writing a function to do Newton's method, should it be called
> newtons_method or Newt
Hi everyone,
I have a small issue that I would like an official opinion on. Should
proper names in functions be lower-case? For example, if you are
writing a function to do Newton's method, should it be called
newtons_method or Newtons_method? I have been capitalizing names but
it seems I am i
On Dec 30, 1:58 pm, "Bill Page" wrote:
Hi Bill,
> I've got a build failure in Atlas on Debian. Any ideas?
>
> ---
> p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ cat /etc/issue
> Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 \n \l
>
> p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ cat /etc/debian_version
> 4.0
> p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ gcc --version
I've got a build failure in Atlas on Debian. Any ideas?
--
p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 \n \l
p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ cat /etc/debian_version
4.0
p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)
--
B
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for doing it. I'll try to fix any remaining problems with the
>> conversion if there are some.
>
>
> No problem. Sympy is the main reason I've decided to release the
> test suite
On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> Thanks for doing it. I'll try to fix any remaining problems with the
> conversion if there are some.
No problem. Sympy is the main reason I've decided to release the
test suite as BSD. That way, once it's complete you'll be able to
include i
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2008, at 1:21 PM, root wrote:
>>
>> Ondrej,
>>
>> As an objective measure of sympy, what results do you get for the
>> Schaums test suite:
>>
>> http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/CATS
>
> Tim,
>
> I'm planning on supporting
On Dec 30, 2008, at 1:21 PM, root wrote:
>
> Ondrej,
>
> As an objective measure of sympy, what results do you get for the
> Schaums test suite:
>
> http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/CATS
Tim,
I'm planning on supporting SymPy at some point with my version of
the test suite, but differenc
>Could you please elaborate (in technical terms) what is wrong in
>principle with our Risch algorithm implementation, apart that it needs
>fixing for integrals that it cannot yet do? Or is the approach we took
>with sympy not the right one to get the symbolic integration done.
>
>If Sage developer
Despite Burcin's relevant observation, I'll open a ticket and post a
patch with the suggested docstring changes.
John
2008/12/30 Burcin Erocal :
>
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:13:53 -0800
> "William Stein" wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:34 AM, John Cremona
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The docstri
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>
> Is there some confusion of release numbers here:
>
> Release 190 sage-3.2.1.tar 204 MB 2008-12-19
> Release 189 sage-3.2.2.tar 205 MB 2008-12-19
>
> at http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/src ?
The timestamp on sage-3.2
Is there some confusion of release numbers here:
Release 190 sage-3.2.1.tar 204 MB 2008-12-19
Release 189 sage-3.2.2.tar 205 MB 2008-12-19
at http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/src ?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email t
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:13:53 -0800
"William Stein" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:34 AM, John Cremona
> wrote:
> >
> > The docstring for srange() says: [snip]
>
> srange's docstring is wrong and should be fixed. Please post a patch.
>
> The function sxrange gives a proper python itera
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:44:48 -0800
> "William Stein" wrote:
>
>
>> I noticed Burcin said the following in IRC, which is related to the
>> above distinction:
>>
>> "12:58 < burcin> I thought this was the goal all along, I don't see
>> wh
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:44:48 -0800
"William Stein" wrote:
> I noticed Burcin said the following in IRC, which is related to the
> above distinction:
>
> "12:58 < burcin> I thought this was the goal all along, I don't see
> why we needed a new discussion about this"
>
> One reason we need a ne
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:34 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> The docstring for srange() says: [snip]
srange's docstring is wrong and should be fixed. Please post a patch.
The function sxrange gives a proper python iterator. The
documentation for srange should contain a remark that sxrange gives
t
On Dec 30, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
> A longer term project (1-2 months), is to implement the transcendental
> Risch algorithm from scratch. This can be done by going through the
> pseudo code in Bronstein's book
>
> http://www-sop.inria.fr/cafe/Manuel.Bronstein/publications/symb
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:32:06 -0800
"William Stein" wrote:
> I do not see sympy at all as the future for symbolic integration. I
> would instead imagine looking more broadly for a way to get symbolic
> integration capabilities into Sage. This could include:
> * writing something from scrat
Hi William,
> I do not see sympy at all as the future for symbolic integration. I
> would instead imagine looking more broadly for a way to get symbolic
> integration capabilities into Sage. This could include:
>* writing something from scratch
>* porting what is in GIAC
>* porting
This would be fun to have - if I can get to Sage Days 15 perhaps it
would make a good project for me.
As clarification, the sort of celestial mechanics I do for research is
on the extreme pure-math side, so the workshop I am running doesn't
really intersect this project. But I am interested in h
I do not know difference between gcc and gcc-obj-c++ packages.
Shing
On Dec 30, 1:20 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 30, 5:16 am, Shing wrote:
>
> Hi Shing,
>
> > The rpm packages gcc43-ob-c++ and gcc-obj-c++ are
> > not installed by default in opensuse 11.0.
>
> Ok, what do they provide? Given t
Writing a common lisp system in python would solve your problem and be
more feasible, in my opinion.
If you want to write a program to do 80-90 percent of freshman
calculus problems, copy the program
in Norvig's book which implements the derivative-divides method (and
is based on a program I wro
On Dec 30, 5:16 am, Shing wrote:
Hi Shing,
> The rpm packages gcc43-ob-c++ and gcc-obj-c++ are
> not installed by default in opensuse 11.0.
Ok, what do they provide? Given the fact that you build NTL which is C+
+ way earlier than matplotlib this is very strange indeed.
> After I installed
The rpm packages gcc43-ob-c++ and gcc-obj-c++ are
not installed by default in opensuse 11.0.
After I installed them, sage 3.2.1 compiled successfully.
Now I can run sage 3.2.1.
Thanks for all the replies!
Shing
On Dec 29, 8:49 pm, "Gabriel Dos Reis" wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:19 AM,
The docstring for srange() says:
Return list of numbers \code{a, a+step, ..., a+k*step},
where \code{a+k*step < b} and \code{a+(k+1)*step > b}.
This is the best way to get an iterator over Sage integers as
opposed to Python int's. It also allows you to specify step sizes
to
my tar is 204.7 MB,
I will try 3.2.2 but not right new
On Dec 30, 3:03 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 30, 3:48 am, Hassan wrote:
>
> Hi Hassan,
>
> > I have just compiled sage on fedora 10.
> > this is what i have got:
>
>
>
> > sage-3.2.1/.hg/store/data/sage/interfaces/template.py.i
> > Finishe
On Dec 30, 3:02 pm, Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Dec 30, 12:48 pm, Hassan wrote:
>
> > I have just compiled sage on fedora 10.
>
> Can you please tell us which source file you downloaded and what
> commands have you entered prior to this errors?
>
> thx, harald
i have got sage-3.2.1.tar from a
I agree that this functionality should be given a different name so we
can keep gcd for genuine gcds.
Alex, your definition of common denominator is not exactly the same as
the denominator of the gcd. I think a more useful function which
would apply to the field of fractions of any PID would be
On Dec 30, 3:48 am, Hassan wrote:
Hi Hassan,
> I have just compiled sage on fedora 10.
> this is what i have got:
> sage-3.2.1/.hg/store/data/sage/interfaces/template.py.i
> Finished extraction
> There is no spkg-install script, no setup.py, and no configure script,
> so I do not know how
On Dec 30, 12:48 pm, Hassan wrote:
> I have just compiled sage on fedora 10.
Can you please tell us which source file you downloaded and what
commands have you entered prior to this errors?
thx, harald
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to
I have just compiled sage on fedora 10.
this is what i have got:
.
.
.
sage-3.2.1/.hg/store/data/sage/interfaces/sage0.py.i
sage-3.2.1/.hg/store/data/sage/interfaces/singular.py.i
sage-3.2.1/.hg/store/data/sage/interfaces/sympow.py.i
sage-3.2.1/.hg/store/data/sage/interfaces/tachyon.py.i
sage-3.2
Hi,
I was recently looking at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3214
which pointed out a bug in taking the gcd of a bunch of rational numbers.
I'm not sure we should even be doing this. Here are some arguments:
1. this behaviour is not documented in gcd?? (it is docum
On Dec 29, 2008, at 9:13 PM, root wrote:
>
>>> I think there might be a bit of overconfidence in assuming that any
>>> one of the "top 10 Sage developers" is going to reproduce even a
>>> fraction of that complexity in the near term.
>>
>> That's not what is being discussed. The question is abou
50 matches
Mail list logo
