On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brian Granger
> wrote:
>> Now that I think about it, how would I release a worksheet under the
>> GPL. The usual way is to add:
>>
>> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
On May 5, 2009, at 11:12 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some
>>> aspect of
>>> Sage derived code and l
OK, Brian, you beat me to it, I was going to post this link again in
an effort to prolong this thread. ;-)
This link points to a tutorial about how to use Sage to do group
theory. PDF and *.sws formats. Lots of text, but significant
sections of Sage code, including an @interact. Is this a "te
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Kwankyu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is surprising to me.
>
> sage: F. = GF(2^3)
> sage: a.order(),a.additive_order(),a.multiplicative_order()
> (2, 2, 7)
>
> Who is interested in the additive order of a? I think that order()
> should be aliased to multiplicative_order
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:45 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 5, 11:34 pm, Brian Granger wrote:
>> > Licensing discussions just suck and are a waste of time. Sigh
>>
>> Yes, I fully a agree with youexcept when people learn new things
>> about the GPL. I think some important things ha
Hi,
This is surprising to me.
sage: F. = GF(2^3)
sage: a.order(),a.additive_order(),a.multiplicative_order()
(2, 2, 7)
Who is interested in the additive order of a? I think that order()
should be aliased to multiplicative_order().
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post t
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 08:50:09PM -0700, Fidel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As mentioned in
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/834be3b28bd7919f/45629a29507db4cb?lnk=gst&q=tkz#45629a29507db4cb
>
> I am trying to write latex(G) for a graph.
>
> I now have a newer version
On May 5, 11:34 pm, Brian Granger wrote:
> > Licensing discussions just suck and are a waste of time. Sigh
>
> Yes, I fully a agree with youexcept when people learn new things
> about the GPL. I think some important things have come out of this
> discussion:
>
> * A notebook/Worksheet
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> At the beginning of this thread, someone posted a link to the Sage worksheet:
>
> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>
> That is 1) being publicly distributed and 2) is not being released
> under the GPL.
>
> Plus, anyone can create an
Hello folks,
apologies that it took a while, but the final 3.4.2 source tarball
announced a couple days ago turned out to be not truly final :). So
here are md5sums to make the difference clear:
8fe47c23872bc39ceb0136602062c917 sage-3.4.2.tar
fe5ce17b31557f57f32a714855f22d26 sage-3.4.2-sage.ma
> Licensing discussions just suck and are a waste of time. Sigh
Yes, I fully a agree with youexcept when people learn new things
about the GPL. I think some important things have come out of this
discussion:
* A notebook/Worksheet is source code and can potentially be a
derivative work
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Henryk Trappmann
wrote:
>
> Ah now I see, you mean though it displays 1/384 it is internally still
> the above sum, which is computed when evaluated with n.
True. In Sage right now the internal form of the expression (not the
simplified form) is used by the "n"
At the beginning of this thread, someone posted a link to the Sage worksheet:
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
That is 1) being publicly distributed and 2) is not being released
under the GPL.
Plus, anyone can create an account on the public Sage notebook
servers, so basically any workshe
Ah now I see, you mean though it displays 1/384 it is internally still
the above sum, which is computed when evaluated with n.
Well but then this contains imho 2 bugs:
1. 1**(a/b) should be the integer 1.
2. The display of a SymbolicArithmetic should show whats really there
and not reduce before
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>> No, definitely not. But if you post the notebooks publicly and they make
>> use
>> of the sage library, then they have to be GPL'd.
>
> Great, this is what I thought.
> But, then some (or even many) Sage
> users and devs are in violatio
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 03:11:48PM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> Dear Franco, dear all,
>
> Patch of the day: #5991 Add a standard constructor for dynamic classes
>
> Franco, since you are using dynamic classes in Sage-Words, could you
> review or comment on it?
For information: I just a
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
>> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
>> interpreter" aspect is a sm
William,
Thanks for your replies. I mostly want to know what the consensus
interpretation of these issues is amongst the Sage devs. Slowly, I am
getting a picture of what this consensus looks like.
> Publicly distributed code using GPL'd library must be GPL'd.
Great, to first order that is my
On May 5, 10:50 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> > * Is the code pure python or does it use the sage syntax? If the code
> > uses the sage syntax, I think it must be released under the GPL.
> > * Does the code being written actually use any
If you were to print out the source code and distribute it in a book,
it should not change the conclusions of copyright law. People tend to
get very caught up in technical theories, and they often view the law
the way they view software, but a judge will do a basic "sanity
check". If you publish
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
>> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
>> interpreter" aspect is a sm
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about Sage and the GPL. Here is the main question..
>
> IF I write code in a Sage notebook, AND I redistribute the code, do I
> need to release my code under the GPL?
>
> Here is a bit of background...
>
> At a co
On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
> interpreter" aspect is a small perturbation on top of the zero-order:
>
> Sage = Python + GPL
> It is interesting I think that of the two interpretations of the GPL
> represented by the many people in this thread, it seems that
> there are those in the "Rosen camp" as described in
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366, http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm
> (Rosen is general counsel of OS
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
> interpreter" aspect is a small perturbation on top of the zero-order:
>
> Sage = Python
Rob Beezer wrote:
> Your script was your creative work (well, not very creative). You
> could have copied it onto CD's and sold those for whatever price you
> could fetch. I could not buy a CD from you and make copies to sell -
> that would violate your copyright. You have not modified Sage, yo
Michael,
Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
interpreter" aspect is a small perturbation on top of the zero-order:
Sage = Python + GPL libraries
That is, for the most part, I view the interpreter
Hi Fidel,
Contributions to Sage are made via patch files produced with
Mercurial. You may not know it, but where you are building your
modifications to Sage, they are being tracked in a local copy of a
Mercurial repository. The best place to start is here:
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
...
>
>> In general, to function as a derived work requires that you modify a
>> certain number of
>> lines in the codebase of the software. I think the GPL FAQ has about 30-50
>> (I don't remember exactly). So if Rob had about 50 lines fr
Hello,
As mentioned in
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/834be3b28bd7919f/45629a29507db4cb?lnk=gst&q=tkz#45629a29507db4cb
I am trying to write latex(G) for a graph.
I now have a newer version which supports vertex, edge and label
colors, as well as different styles
This is the relevant entry from the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
To quote:
[quote]
If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does
that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-
compatible licenses?
When the in
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria
wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Brian Granger
> wrote:
>> This is all true. But modifying an original work is not the only way
>> of creating a derived work. Ondrej's script *is* a derived work under
>> the definition that the FSF g
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> When you create something (book, photo, program) you automatically
>> have a copyright in/on that work.
>
> Yep.
>
>> You may control the creation of
>> copies. With a GPL/GFDL license you explicitly grant others further
>> freedoms - so
Alfredo,
now that I have my space, it would be really nice to cross links
between accounts so people can choose the option that fits
the best for them.
Not to mention is also because we are part of the same. I'm not
sure how to post a link to your webpage, otherwise I'll have done it.
Greetings
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> This is all true. But modifying an original work is not the only way
> of creating a derived work. Ondrej's script *is* a derived work under
> the definition that the FSF gives (when run, it dynamically links to
> Sage).
Well... since Ond
> When you create something (book, photo, program) you automatically
> have a copyright in/on that work.
Yep.
> You may control the creation of
> copies. With a GPL/GFDL license you explicitly grant others further
> freedoms - someone may make unlimited copies. They may make
> modifications.
> I claim this is still silly.
Then I think you think the GPL is silly and I agree with you :-)
> Did you actually load Sage to write the
> above two lines? Or did you just type two lines in your email program?
> (My guess is the latter). So why in the world would the license for
> Sage affec
Ondrej,
Caveat: my understanding of US copyright law and software licenses.
When you create something (book, photo, program) you automatically
have a copyright in/on that work. You may control the creation of
copies. With a GPL/GFDL license you explicitly grant others further
freedoms - someon
> Obviously everyone understands this differently. But I thought that if
> I have a script A:
>
> ---
> from sage.all import x
> print x**2
> ---
>
> Then my script has to be GPL, because it is dynamically loading a GPL
> library (without any runtime exception) *and* my script doesn't work
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>>> The runtime exception is to allow the use of the gcc runtime, which is
>>> a library gcc links to your code when you need to produce a program
>>> which runs. AFAICT, if you replaced the gcc runtime with something
>>>
Dan Drake wrote:
> The "Clarification of Sage and GPL" thread reminded me of something I've
> noticed: in Sage library files, I often see this license statement:
>
> #**
> # Copyright (C) 200x Name
> #
> # Distributed und
Fidel,
I needed to handle this for the (experimental) patch at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5975
Someone can correct me on the finer points of this, but there is now a
global object named latex, which is an instance of the Latex class.
So the construction latex(u) can be changed to
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> The runtime exception is to allow the use of the gcc runtime, which is
>> a library gcc links to your code when you need to produce a program
>> which runs. AFAICT, if you replaced the gcc runtime with something
>> else, or you just used t
> The runtime exception is to allow the use of the gcc runtime, which is
> a library gcc links to your code when you need to produce a program
> which runs. AFAICT, if you replaced the gcc runtime with something
> else, or you just used the object files compiled by gcc (no linking),
> you wouldn't
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> The FSF asserts that if I develop code that merely links to GPL
> software (static or dynamic), my code is bound by the GPL. I don't
> have to modify the GPL software and I don't even have to distribute
> it.
When you compile and link agai
> Sage functions in a simailr way that GIMP does. If I create an image in
> GIMP from scratch then I own the copyright to that image. The license of GIMP,
> which functions as an editor, a viewer, has it's own plugins for
> postprocessing, ...
> have nothing to do with it.
GIMP is written in a p
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>> How is it a derived work of Sage? That argument seems to lead to the
>> conclusion that my C code would be considered a derived work of GCC.
>
> Your GCC compiled code is a derived work and that (in my
> understanding) is why there exists
The "Clarification of Sage and GPL" thread reminded me of something I've
noticed: in Sage library files, I often see this license statement:
#**
# Copyright (C) 200x Name
#
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Brian,
> A sage worksheet is no more a derived work of Sage than a jpeg would
> be a derived work of Photoshop/GIMP or a .doc file would be a derived
> work of MS Office or OpenOffice.
I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file is not source code in any sense of
the word, thus the GPL is completely irrele
> So apparently it's:
>
> from sage.misc.latex import latex
Just for the record, it's often easier to do:
sage: latex.__module__
'sage.misc.latex'
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from thi
> How is it a derived work of Sage? That argument seems to lead to the
> conclusion that my C code would be considered a derived work of GCC.
Your GCC compiled code is a derived work and that (in my
understanding) is why there exists the so called "runtime exception"
to the GPL that covers this
Fidel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running Sage Version 3.4.1 on ubuntu 8.04.
>
> I'm trying to implement latex(G) for a graph G. After creating my own
> branch to work in I executed the command
>
> sage -b
>
> to build the library and got no errors.
>
> Within the latex(G) procedure I have this f
On May 5, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>> The Sage worksheet at
>>
>> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>>
>> contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
>> could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
>> think there is no way to prove j
On Tue, 05 May 2009 at 09:33AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> Can 2 or 3 people who won't be at Sage Days respond and say they would
> actually watch a live video stream from Sage Days, if I post one? If
> so, then I'll do it (if not, I won't waste the time).
I'd like to watch live (and ask questi
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> The Sage worksheet at
>>
>> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>>
>> contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
>> could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
>> think there is no way to p
Brian Granger wrote:
>> The Sage worksheet at
>>
>> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>>
>> contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
>> could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
>> think there is no way to prove just where I wrote it - notebo
Hello,
I'm running Sage Version 3.4.1 on ubuntu 8.04.
I'm trying to implement latex(G) for a graph G. After creating my own
branch to work in I executed the command
sage -b
to build the library and got no errors.
Within the latex(G) procedure I have this fragment of code
for u in self:
> The Sage worksheet at
>
> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>
> contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
> could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
> think there is no way to prove just where I wrote it - notebook or
> not.
Regardless of
On 5-May-09, at 5:00 PM, Henryk Trappmann wrote:
>
> sage: a = 1/(48*sqrt(1)) - 7/(96*1**(3/2)) + 3/(32*1**(5/2)) - 5/
> (128*1**(7/2))
> sage: a
> 1/384
> sage: for k in range(5): print a.n(digits=10-k)
> :
> 0.00260418
> 0.00260416669
> 0.0026041665
> 0.002604164
> 0.00260419
I cannot
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:33 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Can 2 or 3 people who won't be at Sage Days respond and say they would
> actually
> watch a live video stream from Sage Days, if I post one? If so, then
> I'll do it (if not, I
> won't waste the time).
>
I can't work out right now what tim
William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:20 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>> Does anybody know how to live streaming video broadcasts? I.e.,
>>> something like Skype, but where arbitrarily many people can view the
>>> video live all at on
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>>> At a conference in the last year, one of the Sage developers was asked
>>> this question, and their answer was...
>>>
>>> "You can do whatever you want with your code, you don't have to
>>> release it under the GPL"
>
>> I'm pretty sure t
sage: a = 1/(48*sqrt(1)) - 7/(96*1**(3/2)) + 3/(32*1**(5/2)) - 5/
(128*1**(7/2))
sage: a
1/384
sage: for k in range(5): print a.n(digits=10-k)
:
0.00260418
0.00260416669
0.0026041665
0.002604164
0.00260419
sage: b = 1/384
sage: for k in range(5): print b.n(digits=10-k);
:
0.0026041
On May 5, 3:25 pm, Brian Granger wrote:
> IF I write code in a Sage notebook, AND I redistribute the code, do I
> need to release my code under the GPL?
The Sage worksheet at
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
could be obv
>> At a conference in the last year, one of the Sage developers was asked
>> this question, and their answer was...
>>
>> "You can do whatever you want with your code, you don't have to
>> release it under the GPL"
> I'm pretty sure that is correct.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanI
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about Sage and the GPL. Here is the main question..
>
> IF I write code in a Sage notebook, AND I redistribute the code, do I
> need to release my code under the GPL?
>
> Here is a bit of background...
>
> At a co
Hi,
I have a question about Sage and the GPL. Here is the main question..
IF I write code in a Sage notebook, AND I redistribute the code, do I
need to release my code under the GPL?
Here is a bit of background...
At a conference in the last year, one of the Sage developers was asked
this que
Dear Franco, dear all,
Patch of the day: #5991 Add a standard constructor for dynamic classes
Franco, since you are using dynamic classes in Sage-Words, could you
review or comment on it?
Thanks in advance,
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
> Clever. That's actually a very good idea, which mostly negates my
> concerns.
:-)
Credits shared with Carl and Mike!
> Nonetheless, I would really like to hear from python-dev about what
> *they* thinking about pickling and nested classes. What if there
> are some good reasons for the curre
>>
>> On relative slow hardware it looks like a good idea to make
>> installation of ATLAS and e.g. FLINT less time consuming.
>
> Well, for ATLAS we don't even run the test suite, so what you see at
> the moment is as close to optimum as it gets. You can reuse a
> previously build ATLAS (assuming
2009/5/5 gsw :
>
>> I'm following this thread because it seems close to what I have been
>> thinking about regarding eclib, which is also its own "upstream" in
>> the sense that the particular combination of source and Makefiles in
>> eclib exists only for inclusion in Sage. When first packaging
> I'm following this thread because it seems close to what I have been
> thinking about regarding eclib, which is also its own "upstream" in
> the sense that the particular combination of source and Makefiles in
> eclib exists only for inclusion in Sage. When first packaging up
> eclib code for S
> do, but I'm opening another ticket -- #5990 -- which contains only a
> patch for the developer's guide, with contributions from #4857, Alex's
> wiki page, and my own additions.
>
> (I think that improving the documentation is important enough that we
> shouldn't wait for other issues in #4857 to
Hi Dan,
Thanks for reviewing the code. I have included your suggestions and I
have done a spell check on the file now and will submit the updated
version to trac once I get an account. (Michael?)
As a side remark concerning the prec argument, it is passed straight
into the sqrt() functions used
On May 5, 10:53 am, Andras Salamon
wrote:
.
> I thought papers like your
> http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/graphing7.pdf
> were highly appropriate for the Graph Drawing symposium?
> http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/gd2009/gd2009.asp
> (Submission deadline is 31 May 2009.)
>
>
2009/5/5 mabshoff :
>
>
>
> On May 5, 7:21 am, William Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:16 AM, wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Michael,
>>
>> >> The whole point is that src contains clean upstream sources you can
>> >> download from wherever you document in SPKG.txt.
>>
>> > OK. So what shall I do if
I don't get that problem on my ubuntu laptop ruunning either 3.4.2.rc0
or 3.4.2, i.e. the mini icon _does_ appear left of the url box
John
2009/5/5 William Stein :
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:44 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 5, 6:35 am, John Cremona wrote:
>>> Is that related to the
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:43 AM, VictorMiller wrote:
>
> As a comparison I just ran my old C program (implementing the
> algorithm in my paper with Lagarias and Odlyzko) on my workstation
> which is a fast Dell '86 box (sorry I don't have more details) running
> Red Hat:
Wow, I didn't know Dell
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:43 AM, VictorMiller wrote:
>>
>> As a comparison I just ran my old C program (implementing the
>> algorithm in my paper with Lagarias and Odlyzko) on my workstation
>> which is a fast Dell '86 box (sorry I don't ha
As a comparison I just ran my old C program (implementing the
algorithm in my paper with Lagarias and Odlyzko) on my workstation
which is a fast Dell '86 box (sorry I don't have more details) running
Red Hat:
time ./findn 249
n=249_999_999_999_999
pi(249_999_999_999_999)=7_783_516_108
On May 5, 5:03 am, mabshoff wrote:
> On May 5, 4:40 am, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
>
> > Hi!
>
> > On May 5, 1:22 pm, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > > Yes, everything but src should be under revision control.
>
> > Everything *but* src? I thought src would be the most interesting part
> > of an spkg..
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
> (2) My patch does not touch the Python interpreter, but a copy of
> cPickle within the Sage source tree. This does not prevent upgrading
> python, as long as we keep our copy of cPickle reasonably updated. Of
> course this is only accepta
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:28:21AM -0700, RJF wrote:
> 1. Where to publish papers like mine on this graph-input topic?
>
> There have occasionally been venues for articles like this, but they
> have mostly been destroyed by people attempting to "upgrade" the
> venue.
I thought papers like you
I'd watch Mike Hansen do "Advanced Mercurial" if it happened Sunday
morning when I'm pinned at home prior to working our graduation
ceremony that afternoon - only so I could ask him a few questions via
IRC (which I was going to suggest as a useful adjunct to a live
stream).
But perhaps better wou
On May 5, 9:27 am, William Stein wrote:
> Now *that* is a good idea. I would really like the suggestion Jason
> makes above. Very nice.
Agreed. My implementations always allowed you to drag the vertex back
and drop it back on the canvas unmolested wherever you liked.
Including a visual cue th
1. Where to publish papers like mine on this graph-input topic?
There have occasionally been venues for articles like this, but they
have mostly been destroyed by people attempting to "upgrade" the
venue.
Thus ISSAC, one-time premier conference, has been changed into a dry-
as-dust collectio
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>> Can 2 or 3 people who won't be at Sage Days respond and say they
>> would actually
>> watch a live video stream from Sage Days, if I post one?
>
> I am unlikely to watch a live stream but have watched several of the
> posted videos after
> Can 2 or 3 people who won't be at Sage Days respond and say they
> would actually
> watch a live video stream from Sage Days, if I post one?
I am unlikely to watch a live stream but have watched several of the
posted videos after the fact.
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---
> It'd also be helpful for someone to volunteer to say watch IRC and
> relay any questions from there to the live event.
>
Good point! Thanks for volunteering! :P
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
-cc
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM, William Stein wrote:
> That looks really good / easy: http://www.ustream.tv/get-started
>
> Can 2 or 3 people who won't be at Sage Days respond and say they would
> actually
> watch a live video stream from Sage Days, if I post one? If so, then
> I'll do it (if
Fredrik, I just saw on the SAGE days 15 project list you have the
Meissel-Lehmer-Lagarias-Miller-Odlyzko algorithm. I still have my old C
code for this, if that would be a good start. I never looked in detail at
the variants that were made by Deleglise-Rivat and Gourdon, which knocked a
few log f
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 06:48:06AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Carl, dear all,
> >
> > This is a call for comments and reviews for the new ticket #5986 whose
> > description is:
> >
> > --
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:20 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> Does anybody know how to live streaming video broadcasts? I.e.,
>> something like Skype, but where arbitrarily many people can view the
>> video live all at once? If so, we could setu
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Rob Beezer wrote:
>> Well, I'll see your minus 10 and raise you 5.
>> A massive +15 to "drag-and-trash".
>>
>> What if there was an Undo facility available?
>>
>
> Why not make it Apple-style? Drag the vertex off the canvas, and the
> cursor
Rob Beezer wrote:
> Well, I'll see your minus 10 and raise you 5.
> A massive +15 to "drag-and-trash".
>
> What if there was an Undo facility available?
>
Why not make it Apple-style? Drag the vertex off the canvas, and the
cursor turns to a poof cursor. If you drag it back on, before lettin
The first version of a program like this I wrote with a colleague in
the mid-80's. For several years it was an important part of our
toolkit as we studied Siemion Fajtlowicz's Graffiti conjectures
(automated conjecture creation in graph theory). This version had
"drag-and-trash" and I included i
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:20 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Does anybody know how to live streaming video broadcasts? I.e.,
> something like Skype, but where arbitrarily many people can view the
> video live all at once? If so, we could setup a laptop like that and
> have it broadcast live all the S
On May 5, 7:16 am, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> > The whole point is that src contains clean upstream sources you can
> > download from wherever you document in SPKG.txt.
>
> OK. So what shall I do if most of the code is original, not from some
> "upstream"?
> In src/, I have
Yeah, it was supposed to be a feature, but I agree that double click
to remove is easier and less error-prone. I will give it a few days to
see if anybody has good argument why we should keep it and if not I
will remove it.
I will also make undo for the last erased vertex.
Rado
On May 5, 9:13 a
On May 5, 7:21 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:16 AM, wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
>
> >> The whole point is that src contains clean upstream sources you can
> >> download from wherever you document in SPKG.txt.
>
> > OK. So what shall I do if most of the code is original, not
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
