> Seriously, it looks for all the world to me that you are intentionally
> trying to kick MPIR while it is down, knowing full well that a
> comparison is unfair at this point. I expect that by October/November
> this year we will match GMP feature for feature, and that will be
> regardless of whet
On 22 Apr, 02:02, David Harvey wrote:
> Can someone show me a benchmark where MPIR is faster than GMP? I tried
> a few basic things and couldn't find any. Someone who knows the MPIR
> codebase better than me should be able to find something.
Are you aware that our MPIRbench score on K8 is hig
On 22 Apr, 01:58, David Harvey wrote:
> I am talking about the mpn-level interface, which is relevant for a
> lot of the things I work on.
If it helps, we have made a commitment to implementing the full public
GMP interface in MPIR, including the mpn level.
As GMP developers now have an open
On Apr 21, 11:15 pm, Rob Beezer wrote:
> There's a positive review up for #5848, but clearly I wasn't fast
> enough. ;-)
Yeah, after talking about it with some people in IRC it seems that
there wasn't any strong consensus. And John Palmieri had pointed out
that he can easily rebase the patch,
On 22 Apr, 01:57, David Harvey wrote:
> And whatever happened to "not reinventing the wheel"? I suppose that's
> a Sage motto but not an MPIR one?
The same argument applied to FLINT and zn_poly leads to curious
conclusions.
So which are you arguing MPIR should do.
1) Try and reuse as much c
There's a positive review up for #5848, but clearly I wasn't fast
enough. ;-)
#5653 causes tab-completion in the notebook to display the docstring
or source code formatted very nicely using HTML, just as it looks in
the reference manual. Lots of color and syntax highlighting, and TeX
rendered p
On 21 Apr, 22:40, David Harvey wrote:
> Already it's impossible to
> install the gmp-4.3 spkg without breaking all those doctests. Over
> time, it's inevitable that the APIs of the two packages will diverge,
> unless the projects can come to some kind of agreement. I can't see
> how this can
> In module sage.rings.integer
>
> is_Integer(3/2+1/2)
>
> returns
>
> False The expected output should be True as 3/2+1/2 = 2.
>
> I was planning to use this function to check if the result of division
> is a whole number.
>
You could also use the is_integral method of rational numbers:
sage:
On 21 Apr, 17:38, dmharvey wrote:
> Recently Sage switched from GMP to the MPIR fork. I make no secret of
> the fact that I disagree with this decision, although I did initially
> support MPIR. I hope that Sage can figure out some way to incorporate
> the improvements in GMP 4.3.0 (as competin
In module sage.rings.integer
is_Integer(3/2+1/2)
returns
False The expected output should be True as 3/2+1/2 = 2.
I was planning to use this function to check if the result of division
is a whole number.
Harald responded with a suggestion to use Integer() (thread below)
Integer(p/q) works
Hello folks,
as expected changes over 3.4.1.rc4 are minimal:
Merged in Sage 3.4.1.final:
#5284: Michael Abshoff: Set sage-flags.txt up to SSE2 only when
building Sage in SSE2 only mode/remove SSSE3 and SSE4 flags (followup
to #5219) [Reviewed by Gonzalo Tornaria]
#5829: Minh Van Nguyen: copyrig
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>>
>> thank you for clarifying this, I didn't know that sympy was already
>> pretty well working with the new symbolics
>>
>> I hope this has at least given some information to the communit
2009/4/21 David Harvey :
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2:31 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>> In some cases it would be less work to just contribute features
>> directly to MPIR to bring the current code up to par.
>
> I think you are underestimating how much work it is to design, write
> and debug these things.
>
>
On Apr 21, 8:26 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> Ok, the last patch awaiting review for 3.4.1 is at #5284. It finishes
> the SSE2 only build mode and is a trivial change to $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/
> sage-location. Once it is reviewed and merged I will cut 3.4.1.
> Volunteer
Thanks to Gonzalo and William the pat
Ok, the last patch awaiting review for 3.4.1 is at #5284. It finishes
the SSE2 only build mode and is a trivial change to $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/
sage-location. Once it is reviewed and merged I will cut 3.4.1.
Volunteers?
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to
On Apr 21, 7:57 pm, Nick Alexander wrote:
> On 21-Apr-09, at 5:07 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hello folks,
>
> > up to now the rules on tabs in Sage library sources has been "don't
> > use them", but there was never any enforcement and/or systematic
> > detection since no side effect of using
On 21-Apr-09, at 5:07 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> up to now the rules on tabs in Sage library sources has been "don't
> use them", but there was never any enforcement and/or systematic
> detection since no side effect of using tabs has even been detected.
Not really: python rejects
> > Should I post this on trac? Should an inferior sage always make sure
> > %pdb is turned off, or should the pexpect interface handle ipdb prompts?
>
> I am not sure if this is something we want or should work around. My
> POV on this is as mentioned above if you do custom ipython/ipythonrc
> s
On Apr 21, 8:41 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> GMP-ECM 6.2.2 should be in the next Sage release. Is this fix that you
> put in thet ecm-gmp.spkg already upstream?
No I don't think so. I believe Paul Zimmermann is aware of the issue,
but you might want to ping him about it.
I don't recommend using the
On Apr 21, 8:31 pm, Craig Citro wrote:
> I also would like to see both a gmp and mpir spkg available. Even if
> someone never wanted to use gmp (for whatever reasons, be they
> licensing or other), I think it would be good to have both easily
> available -- for consistency checks, benchmarking,
On Apr 21, 8:06 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> The only doctests that break are the xgcd ones, right? This has been
> an issue before, and so I think perhaps the doctests should be improved.
Also some doctests related to modular symbols. I don't know enough
about this area to tell whether it's
On Apr 21, 2:31 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> In some cases it would be less work to just contribute features
> directly to MPIR to bring the current code up to par.
I think you are underestimating how much work it is to design, write
and debug these things.
And whatever happened to "not reinventing
On Apr 21, 9:38 am, dmharvey wrote:
> Hi folks,
Hi David,
> To try it out, you will need to remove SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard/gmp-
> mpir*.spkg and replace it with the above file, before starting the
> build. (I'm not sure if you can install it into an existing sage
> build.) You will also nee
>> I wish all forks could be as amicable as the Pyrex/Cython one, but
>> understandably that is rarely the case. I support the reasons behind
>> MPIR, but I think it's a very good thing to provide a GMP spkg for
>> Sage--it gives users the choice.
>
> But Robert, that choice is illusory. Already i
Dear Nick,
One more feature request for M-x rerun-sage
More often than not when I rerun-sage, I am at an ipdb> prompt.
Currently the soft kill (which is much faster than the hard kill!)
does not work in that case. Could the soft kill try to sent twice
'quit' to sage, so as to first quit
On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:40 PM, David Harvey wrote:
> On Apr 21, 3:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>
>> I wish all forks could be as amicable as the Pyrex/Cython one, but
>> understandably that is rarely the case. I support the reasons behind
>> MPIR, but I think it's a very good thing to provide a
Hello folks,
up to now the rules on tabs in Sage library sources has been "don't
use them", but there was never any enforcement and/or systematic
detection since no side effect of using tabs has even been detected.
As it turns out #5653 exposes a case where tabs cause problems when
rendering docs
On Apr 21, 4:52 pm, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
> Oops, running late reading sage-devel ...
:)
> Well, you might be disappointed: in my case it turns out that this
> probably stems from the fact that I have %pdb on by default (pdb 1 in
> ipython/ipythonrc).
Ok, having non-defaul
Oops, running late reading sage-devel ...
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 02:34:24PM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:30 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:56:37PM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Anyone getting the same behaviour?
> >
> > > I have seen it fail o
On Apr 21, 4:39 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:35 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:32 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> >> Hi Nicolas,
>
> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Hello,
>
> >> > I just hit some strange interactio
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:35 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 21, 4:32 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hello,
>>
>> > I just hit some strange interaction between Weyl groups, interactive
>> > Gap sess
On Apr 21, 4:32 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I just hit some strange interaction between Weyl groups, interactive
> > Gap session and deepcopy.
>
> > Anyone help on debugging this?
>
>
>
> I c
Hi Nicolas,
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
> I just hit some strange interaction between Weyl groups, interactive
> Gap session and deepcopy.
>
> Anyone help on debugging this?
>
I can reproduce it using Sage 3.4. But it's very strange, because
Hello,
I just hit some strange interaction between Weyl groups, interactive
Gap session and deepcopy.
Anyone help on debugging this?
Thanks in advance,
Nicolas
--
| Sage Version
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> thank you for clarifying this, I didn't know that sympy was already
> pretty well working with the new symbolics
>
> I hope this has at least given some information to the community as
> well! I always learn a lot from these discussions
Excell
On Apr 21, 3:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> I wish all forks could be as amicable as the Pyrex/Cython one, but
> understandably that is rarely the case. I support the reasons behind
> MPIR, but I think it's a very good thing to provide a GMP spkg for
> Sage--it gives users the choice.
B
thank you for clarifying this, I didn't know that sympy was already
pretty well working with the new symbolics
I hope this has at least given some information to the community as
well! I always learn a lot from these discussions
Regards
Maurizio
On 21 Apr, 22:58, Jason Grout wrote:
> Ondrej C
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Maurizio
>>> wrote:
Kudos to SymPy!
I'm wondering why the python integration algorithms implemented there
>>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>>>
>>> Kudos to SymPy!
>>>
>>> I'm wondering why the python integration algorithms implemented there
>>> aren't in the short te
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>>
>> Kudos to SymPy!
>>
>> I'm wondering why the python integration algorithms implemented there
>> aren't in the short term adopted by SAGE.
>
> They are --- you can use them from sympy i
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> Kudos to SymPy!
>
> I'm wondering why the python integration algorithms implemented there
> aren't in the short term adopted by SAGE.
They are --- you can use them from sympy inside Sage. It's my goal
that all sympy features are nicely integra
On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:38 AM, dmharvey
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I have made a basic spkg for GMP 4.3.0:
>>
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/dmharvey/gmp-4.3.0.spkg
[...]
>> Recently Sage switched from GMP to the MPIR fork. I
Sage trac's stylesheet sets the width of a ticket's description, change
history, etc., to 700 pixels:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/chrome/common/css/ticket.css
contains
#content.ticket { width: 700px; max-width: 100% }
To override this in Firefox on Linux, I put
#content.ticket { width
There was a proposal to maintain a GPL v3+ version of MPIR with some
of the code that has ended up in GMP 4.3.0 in it, as for the most
part, Sage could use it. But it seemed like too much of a distraction
from our current priorities. I don't personally want to get
sidetracked by that, as I expect
Hi,
Sage Days 16 will be in Barcelona June 22-27, 2009. The current list
of participants is:
# Michael Abshoff
# Martin Albrecht
# Wouter Castryck
# Christian Eder
# Burcin Erocal
# Jordi Guàrdia
# David Loeffler
# Robert Miller
# Joaquim Puig
# Jordi Quer
# Emmanuel Thome
# Gonzalo Tornaria
#
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:38 AM, dmharvey wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I have made a basic spkg for GMP 4.3.0:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/dmharvey/gmp-4.3.0.spkg
>
> I've only tested on a linux opteron system. It builds fine; there are
> various doctest failures that look related to non
Hi folks,
I have made a basic spkg for GMP 4.3.0:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/dmharvey/gmp-4.3.0.spkg
I've only tested on a linux opteron system. It builds fine; there are
various doctest failures that look related to non-canonical XGCD
output. Quite possibly it won't yet even build on
On 20 Apr., 21:04, Jason Grout wrote:
> kcrisman wrote:
>
> >> Patch up athttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5836
>
> > I ask out of ignorance - will this somehow break how interacts
> > currently work? Maybe it will even make them better?
>
> better; much better.
>
> Now you can contro
On 04/21/09 13:31, mabshoff wrote:
> Ok. I tried to find what I was thinking off and could not find it, so
> it seems that my recollection was wrong, so mea culpa. Thanks for
> pinging Enthought on this to set the record straight.
Not a problem. Thanks for all the excellent work on Sage!
cheers
On Apr 21, 12:55 am, Prabhu Ramachandran
wrote:
> On 04/17/09 15:05, mabshoff wrote:
Hi Prabhu,
> > I think there was something on the scipy or numpy list about this
> > early this or late last week. It was about setuptools IIRC and might
> > have been part about the discussion about numpy eg
On 04/17/09 15:05, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:25 am, Prabhu Ramachandran
> wrote:
>> On 04/17/09 13:37, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>>> If your plan is still to recreate all scripts to be BSD the above
>>> would be more or less pointless, so you need to let us know what you
>>> want to do. I really do
On Apr 21, 12:32 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
>
> > Actually, I thought that this discussion (especially people much more
> > expert than me) has clarified the point that implementing integrals is
> > not really just matter of a co
On Apr 20, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Maurizio wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Actually, I thought that this discussion (especially people much more
> expert than me) has clarified the point that implementing integrals is
> not really just matter of a couple of months... but I would be glad to
> see this happen
53 matches
Mail list logo
