On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 04:08:28AM -0700, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Hello everybody
>
> I have already sent a few messages about this and complained for a
> while. The only way for the moment to solve Linear Programs (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming ) is CVXOPT, a library
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:58 PM, kilian wrote:
>>
>> Ondrej,
>>
>> On Jul 5, 6:28 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>>
>>> Excellent, I have added you to the project, so just upload your spkg
>>> package into the Downloads (hit new download and it s
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:58 PM, kilian wrote:
>
> Ondrej,
>
> On Jul 5, 6:28 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> Excellent, I have added you to the project, so just upload your spkg
>> package into the Downloads (hit new download and it should work).
>>
>
> OK, I uploaded it.
>
>> > One thing that I
On a beta Ubuntu 9.10, sage-4.1.rc0 built and tested fine.
However, Jaap Spie's ETS install doesn't work for vtk-
cvs-20090316.spkg.
Its looking for a libpython2.5.a and a Python.h file. Sage of course
has a
Python.h in its python2.6 directories, but it seems that vtk is
looking for
a 2.5. In
On 5 Jul., 23:06, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Georg,
>
> On 5 Jul., 22:13, gsw wrote:
>
> > first of all, "sage-check" is something specific to Sage.
>
> Do you mean spkg-check? But sure, this is Sage specific as well, since
> AFAIK spkg stands for Sage package.
Ah, typo on my side. It is "spkg-ch
On Mac OS X 10.4, too, singular fails to build (see the message from
John H Palmieri above).
It seems that (see trac #6362) the update from Singular 3.1.0.2 to
Singular 3.1.0.4 did have an unwanted side-effect ... thoughts?
Cheers,
gsw
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To pos
Hi,
so let's start the notebook as a separate project? I would of course
prefer if Mike could do that, but if he's busy, I'll try to at least
start it. I think it could be on notebook.sagemath.org. What kind of
bugtracker do you prefer to use?
Looking at Jaap's playground here:
http://nb.femhub
I've just released FLINT 1.4. Get it at http://www.flintlib.org/
This release contains a large number of *speedups*. Note that
the zmod_poly_gcd, xgcd, gcd_invert and resultant speedups also speed
up the associated fmpz_poly functions. The gcd_invert, resultant and
xgcd speedups are asymp
Hi:
I'm working on a user-friendly, intuitive interface to PIL and have some
questions. Before preparing a patch, I was hoping that members of this
group would suggest ways to proceed.
Here is what I've done so far: in the module pil.py, posted to
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/patches
Hi Georg,
On 5 Jul., 22:13, gsw wrote:
> first of all, "sage-check" is something specific to Sage.
Do you mean spkg-check? But sure, this is Sage specific as well, since
AFAIK spkg stands for Sage package.
> But if you have, say, a C or CPP library in your spkg, it is a must
> that the spkg-ch
I also built and tested (on Arch Linux current, 32bit, that's gcc 4.4
snapshot) - one test failed, devel/sage/sage/graphs/graph.py - in
exactly same way as for Jaap (output noise)
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>
> Robert Miller wrote:
>> Source tarball, sage.math binary, and
On 5 Jul., 19:04, Bjarke Hammersholt Roune
wrote:
> Hi gsw,
>
> Thank you for looking at the Frobby-Cython ticket. According to the
> Cython FAQ, pxd files are preferred over pxi files, unless the file
> has to contain code rather than just declarations. The file in
> question does not have any
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:13 AM, gsw wrote:
>
> If this does answer your questions, please feel free to open a trac
> ticket "Developers' Guide enhancement: About spkg-check". :-)
If a trac ticket is opened about this, then I think one also needs to
add information about timed out errors, as di
On 5 Jul., 17:23, Simon King wrote:
> Dear sage devel,
>
> currently I am writing a test suite for my cohomology spkg. In the
> Developer's Guide, I read:
>
> spkg-check: this file runs the test suite. This is somewhat optional
> since not all spkgs have test suites. If possible do create such
Dear John,
On 5 Jul., 21:22, John H Palmieri wrote:
> > - How can one influence the time after which a test is killed?
>
> Look at the file SAGE_ROOT/local/bin/sage-doctest: it uses environment
> variables SAGE_TIMEOUT and SAGE_TIMEOUT_LONG to determine how long (in
> seconds) to test with 'sage
In that report, William Stein says,
"A large amount of the symbolic functionality that uses Maxima has
issues like this, but unfortunately there is basically nothing we can
do about it, except continue with projects to rewrite the parts of
Sage that call Maxima so that they don't call Maxima."
Wh
On Jul 5, 11:41 am, Simon King wrote:
> Dear Sage devel,
>
> writing a test suite for my cohomology package, I got rather
> frustrated. After working around the randomness of some Gap functions,
> I am now concerned with the computation time.
>
> It happened that the tests passed, with a total ti
On Jul 5, 1:22 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
> On Fedora 9, 32 bit:
>
> --
> The following tests failed:
>
> sage -t "devel/sage/sage/graphs/graph.py"
>
> sage -t "devel/sage/sage/graphs/graph.py"
>
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Simon King wrote:
>
> Dear Sage devel,
>
> writing a test suite for my cohomology package, I got rather
> frustrated. After working around the randomness of some Gap functions,
> I am now concerned with the computation time.
>
> It happened that the tests
Dear Sage devel,
writing a test suite for my cohomology package, I got rather
frustrated. After working around the randomness of some Gap functions,
I am now concerned with the computation time.
It happened that the tests passed, with a total time of about 15
minutes. But now, without me being a
On 4 Jul 2009, at 23:21, Robert Miller wrote:
> Source tarball, sage.math binary, and upgrade URL are, respectively:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/rlmill/release/sage-4.1.rc0.tar
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/rlmill/release/sage-4.1.rc0-sage.math-only-x86_64-Linux.tar.gz
> htt
I heard back from Gert-Martin Greuel of the Singular team. He said he
would look into the Hilbert-related issues. He also pointing out the
limitations mentioned at
http://www.singular.uni-kl.de/Manual/latest/sing_343.htm#SEC384
In particular, I noticed these entries:
* the (weighted) degree of
Bjarke Hammersholt Roune wrote:
> Hi gsw,
>
> Thank you for looking at the Frobby-Cython ticket. According to the
> Cython FAQ, pxd files are preferred over pxi files, unless the file
> has to contain code rather than just declarations. The file in
> question does not have any code, so you are co
Hi gsw,
Thank you for looking at the Frobby-Cython ticket. According to the
Cython FAQ, pxd files are preferred over pxi files, unless the file
has to contain code rather than just declarations. The file in
question does not have any code, so you are correct that it would be
better as a pxd file.
On Jul 4, 8:21 pm, Robert Miller wrote:
> Source tarball, sage.math binary, and upgrade URL are, respectively:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/rlmill/release/sage-4.1.rc0.tarhttp://sage.math.washington.edu/home/rlmill/release/sage-4.1.rc0-sage...http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/rlmil
On an amd64 ubuntu 9.04 machine, install built fine and all tests passed.
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
>
> Source tarball, sage.math binary, and upgrade URL are, respectively:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/rlmill/release/sage-4.1.rc0.tar
> http://sage.math.was
Dear sage devel,
currently I am writing a test suite for my cohomology spkg. In the
Developer's Guide, I read:
spkg-check: this file runs the test suite. This is somewhat optional
since not all spkgs have test suites. If possible do create such a
script since it helps isolate bugs in upstream p
Hi all,
It seems none of the current substitute methods for symbolic
expressions works for the argument of the derivative operator.
In computing functional derivative, I need to vary
a functional. For example, in sage-3.4 I can do as follows
---
sage: f(x) = function('f',x)
sage: df(x) = fun
Jason Grout wrote:
> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> 1) I must be able to use NumPy together with the preparser (it's just
>> too much hassle to turn it on and off, and it kind of defeats the
>> purpose.). That is, with the preparser on, I should be able to run most
>> NumPy-using code without c
Robert Miller wrote:
> Source tarball, sage.math binary, and upgrade URL are, respectively:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/rlmill/release/sage-4.1.rc0.tar
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/rlmill/release/sage-4.1.rc0-sage.math-only-x86_64-Linux.tar.gz
> http://sage.math.washington.
30 matches
Mail list logo
