On May 19, 3:49 pm, David Harvey wrote:
> On May 19, 11:41 pm, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > Well, in this case it is completely ironic that the zn_poly 0.9 code
> > in FLINT is compiled, but not used since it causes a doctest failure
> > in the Monsky code. When using only FLINT it passes the doctest
On May 20, 6:19 pm, Stephen Forrest wrote:
> 2009/5/18 mark mcclure
>
> > Here are a couple of graph theoretic timing comparisons
> > between Sage 4.0.alpha0 and Maple 13. They were
> > performed on my Macbook Pro running OSX 10.4.11. They
> > indicate that Maple generates graphs a bit faster b
> I am up and running, fresh and full of energy and hope. And I have a
> bold plan for getting the core of the category patch in by tomorrow,
> and the rest in 10 days.
Oh and I forgot the most important part of the plan: once the core is
in Sage, we should all go sea kayaking to rejoice about it
2009/5/18 mark mcclure
> Here are a couple of graph theoretic timing comparisons
> between Sage 4.0.alpha0 and Maple 13. They were
> performed on my Macbook Pro running OSX 10.4.11. They
> indicate that Maple generates graphs a bit faster but
> Sage tests isomorphisms *much* faster. In neither
On May 20, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
>> I won't be there by 3:00, but later this afternoon would be good.
>
> Sounds good; I did not get food yet, and this is becoming urgent. Just
> setup a time, and I'll be there!
I haven't eaten yet either, will head down to the SCC at 3:20
On May 20, 3:00 pm, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> > I won't be there by 3:00, but later this afternoon would be good.
>
> Sounds good; I did not get food yet, and this is becoming urgent. Just
> setup a time, and I'll be there!
>
> > I would like to build this on top of a nearly-complete 4.0 to
> I won't be there by 3:00, but later this afternoon would be good.
Sounds good; I did not get food yet, and this is becoming urgent. Just
setup a time, and I'll be there!
> I would like to build this on top of a nearly-complete 4.0 to do some
> real testing and not have to do any more rebasin
On May 20, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> Dear Sage / Sage-Combinat developers,
>
> I am up and running, fresh and full of energy and hope. And I have a
> bold plan for getting the core of the category patch in by tomorrow,
> and the rest in 10 days.
>
> Carl, Craig, David,
Dear Sage / Sage-Combinat developers,
I am up and running, fresh and full of energy and hope. And I have a
bold plan for getting the core of the category patch in by tomorrow,
and the rest in 10 days.
Carl, Craig, David, Mike, Robert (B): what about meeting at 3pm to
build a consensus ar
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Rob Beezer wrote:
>> +1
>
> Since I can't remember ever using the "typeset" command, another +1 to me.
+1 (and I think I wrote it)
(as long as functionality is not diminished elsewhere)
Jason
--
Jason Grout
--~--~-~--~--
On 20-May-09, at 9:49 AM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> Should we deprecate (or altogether eliminate) the typeset command?
+1 to eliminate, I'm not a fan of this deprecation policy.
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegro
Disclaimer: I may not know what I'm talking about here :).
Serge A. Salamanka wrote:
>
>
> William Stein пишет:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Serge A. Salamanka wrote:
>>> If no objection I'll post here for possible comments and guidelines.
>>>
>>> First thing that I'm trying to do is to
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:41 AM, bourbabis wrote:
>
> Hello Sage team.
>
> While doing some engineering calculations with Sage, I've encountered
> some problems requiring "computational geometry" algorithms. So I've
> snooped around and found "CGAL". Are you aware this set of tools
> exists ? It
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
> +1
Since I can't remember ever using the "typeset" command, another +1 to me.
William
>
> On May 20, 9:49 am, John H Palmieri wrote:
>> Should we deprecate (or altogether eliminate) the typeset command?
>> It's defined in sage.misc.latex
+1
On May 20, 9:49 am, John H Palmieri wrote:
> Should we deprecate (or altogether eliminate) the typeset command?
> It's defined in sage.misc.latex, and right now it's only imported in
> the notebook. Essentially the same effect can be achieved by using
> 'view'. As someone pointed out, there
Should we deprecate (or altogether eliminate) the typeset command?
It's defined in sage.misc.latex, and right now it's only imported in
the notebook. Essentially the same effect can be achieved by using
'view'. As someone pointed out, there are lots of almost equivalent
pretty printing commands,
William Stein пишет:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Serge A. Salamanka wrote:
>> If no objection I'll post here for possible comments and guidelines.
>>
>> First thing that I'm trying to do is to make a distribution of SAGE that
>> could be recommended for installation on worker nodes of la
mark mcclure wrote:
> I did see on the Maxima discussion list back on February 20
> that CVS Maxima could do these integrals. However, I checked
> Maxima 5.18.1 on my Mac laptop and the following returns
> unevaluated:
> integrate((x^m * (1 - x)^n * (a + b*x + c*x^2))/(1 + x^2), x,0,1);
Sorry f
.
>
> > It would be also an interface to mathematica.
>
> Good point. Alpha does integrals as well. That might be useful.
To be fair, integrals.wolfram.com has already done that for a while.
>
> Jason
The following page is particularly relevant to Vinzent's remark:
http://www.wolframalpha.com
On May 20, 9:57 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
> > On May 19, 2:25 pm, mark mcclure wrote:
> >> On May 19, 2:08 am, Jason Grout
> >> Not necessarily. Evidently, there will be an API interface to
> >> Wolfram Alpha that would, presumably, have its own terms
> >> of use. Al
Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
> On May 19, 2:25 pm, mark mcclure wrote:
>> On May 19, 2:08 am, Jason Grout
>>
>>> Fromhttp://www.wolframalpha.com/termsofuse.html#waystouse
>>> "The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human
>>> being using a conventional web browser to manually enter
>>> quer
On May 20, 12:11 am, Mickael Gastineau wrote:
> Hi Michael,
Hi Mickael,
> After a check with the authors of the CeCILL-C license, they confirm
> that CeCILL-C is not immediately compatible with the GPL.
> But the CeCILL-C is compatible by transitivity with the GPL. The
> derived software from
On May 20, 6:41 am, bourbabis wrote:
> Hello Sage team.
Hi,
> While doing some engineering calculations with Sage, I've encountered
> some problems requiring "computational geometry" algorithms. So I've
> snooped around and found "CGAL". Are you aware this set of tools
> exists ? It seems VER
Hello Sage team.
While doing some engineering calculations with Sage, I've encountered
some problems requiring "computational geometry" algorithms. So I've
snooped around and found "CGAL". Are you aware this set of tools
exists ? It seems VERY useful. I express this suggestion because the
underly
On May 19, 2:25 pm, mark mcclure wrote:
> On May 19, 2:08 am, Jason Grout
>
> > Fromhttp://www.wolframalpha.com/termsofuse.html#waystouse
>
> > "The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human
> > being using a conventional web browser to manually enter
> > queries one at a time..."
>
> >
Hi Michael,
After a check with the authors of the CeCILL-C license, they confirm
that CeCILL-C is not immediately compatible with the GPL.
But the CeCILL-C is compatible by transitivity with the GPL. The
derived software from the software under CeCILL-C can be released
under CeCILL (it's the comp
> A category in which Hom sets form abelian groups and in which you have
> finite direct sums is an "additive category". An "abelian category"
> is one in which, loosely speaking, you have well-behaved short exact
> sequences: every monomorphism fits into a short exact sequence, and
> every epimo
27 matches
Mail list logo
