On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
> Please do not make the above change. It would be very inconsistent
> with what happens for symbolic variables:
>
> sage: var('x,y,z,w')
> sage: f = 1.0*x^2 - 1.0*y
> sage: f.variables()
> (x, y)
I'm not sure symbolic variables are consi
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Concerning ticket #6399
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6399
>
> does anyone know who reviewed that ticket?
You are the one who changed the review to "positive review". Robert
Miller explains on the ticket what
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:35 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Martin
>> Albrecht wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday 16 July 2009, David Joyner wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Kiran Kedlaya wrote:
> One pe
On Jul 18, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
>> I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial
>> attempt
>> at the MMA notation:
>>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6344
>>
>
> FYI, a few days ago Burcin uploaded a new patch on 6344 an
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
>> I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial attempt
>> at the MMA notation:
>>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6344
>>
>
> FYI, a few days ago Burcin uploaded a new patch on 6344 and a
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial attempt
> at the MMA notation:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6344
>
FYI, a few days ago Burcin uploaded a new patch on 6344 and asked for
review. Here are the examples:
OLD:
sage: var('x,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Franco Saliola wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:39 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks like the unladen-swallow Python branch
>>> has been making good progress. They now can
>>> pass their test suite
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Marshall Hampton wrote:
>
> I'm probably in the minority on this, but I think tachyon being
> totally broken in sage-4.1 is bad enough that a sage-4.1.0.1 should be
> released as soon as possible with this fixed, not waiting for the
> 4.1.1 cycle to finish in two w
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:39 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>>
>> It looks like the unladen-swallow Python branch
>> has been making good progress. They now can
>> pass their test suite of third party packages
>> (including NumPy and SymPy).
>>
>> ht
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Nicolas M.
Thiery wrote:
>
> Hi William,
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 04:37:34PM -0700, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 7/13/09, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear William, dear Franco,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:50:22AM -0700, William Stein
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 18 Jul., 05:14, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> ...
>> I'd like the second example to look more like the first and it's
>> pretty easy to make that happen. However, this means:
>>
>> {{{
>> sage: x
>> 1.00*x
>> sage: y
>> 1.0
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Nicolas M.
Thiery wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 04:23:29PM -0700, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Martin
>> Albrecht wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi there,
>> >
>> > is there any compelling technical reason why we are using all.py for module
>>
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Nicolas M.
Thiery wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Here are two independent Sage 4.1 sessions which demonstrate that the
> construction of NumberField's is context dependent:
>
> sage: K. = CyclotomicField(5)[]
> sage: W. = NumberField(x^2 + 1)
> sage
I'm not worried about your second example as such (p is an element of
a symbolic ring while q is a polynomial over the cyclotomic field).
But you first examlple is definitely a bug. You first create the
quadratic field Q(sqrt(-1)); then you create a quadratic extension of
the 5th cyclotomic field
Hi!
Here are two independent Sage 4.1 sessions which demonstrate that the
construction of NumberField's is context dependent:
sage: K. = CyclotomicField(5)[]
sage: W. = NumberField(x^2 + 1)
sage: W
Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^2 + 1 over it
Pat LeSmithe wrote:
> On 2009-Jul-01 01:21:56 -0700, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> Is anyone else seeing the fonts injsmathin firefox 3.5 messed up? To
>> check this, go to
>> http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/jsMath/symbols/cmmi10.html.
>
> This is now
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/64
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 04:23:29PM -0700, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Martin
> Albrecht wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > is there any compelling technical reason why we are using all.py for module
> > level initialisation instead of the Python standard __init__.py?
>
On my laptop with
OS: Windows 2000
CPU: Intel Pentium M 1500MHz
Compiler: GCC 3.4.2 (from an old-ish MinGW)
it compiles fine and produces the same output as on your Blade 2000.
Sebastian
On Jul 18, 4:09 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> I'd be interested what you get if you build th
MaxTheMouse wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 18, 9:36 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> wrote:
>> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>
>>> Are you compiling this as 64-bit code? If so, then I would expect this.
>>> Can you try as 32-bit code.
>> try
>>
>> $ gcc -m32 that-code.c
>
> Okay, that did it. As 32-bit code I get no
On Jul 18, 9:36 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> > Are you compiling this as 64-bit code? If so, then I would expect this.
> > Can you try as 32-bit code.
>
> try
>
> $ gcc -m32 that-code.c
Okay, that did it. As 32-bit code I get no warning and the output is:
$ ./te
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> Are you compiling this as 64-bit code? If so, then I would expect this.
> Can you try as 32-bit code.
>
try
$ gcc -m32 that-code.c
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubsc
MaxTheMouse wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 18, 5:09 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> wrote:
>> I'd be interested what you get if you build this program, which was
>> written by one of the gcc guys to try to get to the bottom of this issue
>> with mpfr not building.
>>
>
> I get a warning. The program runs but
Jason Grout wrote:
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>> I'd be interested what you get if you build this program, which was
>> written by one of the gcc guys to try to get to the bottom of this issue
>> with mpfr not building.
>>
>> On the Sun T5240 ('t2') donated by Sun to the Sage project, it dumps
On Jul 18, 5:09 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> I'd be interested what you get if you build this program, which was
> written by one of the gcc guys to try to get to the bottom of this issue
> with mpfr not building.
>
I get a warning. The program runs but not much output. This is on an
AMD-
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Hello everybody !!!
>
> I finally wrote the two versions of the LP solver for SAGE, the first
> using COIN-OR and the second GLPK. It is a very early version of the
> solver, with few if any control of errors ( feasibility, etc ... ) but
>
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> I'd be interested what you get if you build this program, which was
> written by one of the gcc guys to try to get to the bottom of this issue
> with mpfr not building.
>
> On the Sun T5240 ('t2') donated by Sun to the Sage project, it dumps core:
>
> kir...@t2:[~]
I'd be interested what you get if you build this program, which was
written by one of the gcc guys to try to get to the bottom of this issue
with mpfr not building.
On the Sun T5240 ('t2') donated by Sun to the Sage project, it dumps core:
kir...@t2:[~] $ ./a.out
n=0
n=1
Abort (core dumped)
I think it has been a good idea to create such a new google groups for
Pynac, but at the moment it is just empty! :)
It would probably help focusing on some topics related to symbolics,
and be more suitable for communication of new stuff/features to the
community, without necessarily bothering ev
Hi!
On 18 Jul., 05:14, Alex Ghitza wrote:
...
> I'd like the second example to look more like the first and it's
> pretty easy to make that happen. However, this means:
>
> {{{
> sage: x
> 1.00*x
> sage: y
> 1.00*y
> sage: (x^2 - y).variables()
> [1.00*x, 1.0
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Jun 25, 9:05 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:22:46 +0200
> >
> > Stan Schymanski wrote:
> >
> > > I have been asked to forward the below to the sage-devel list.
> > > Ticket #6290 introdu
Hi,
On Jun 25, 9:05 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:22:46 +0200
>
> Stan Schymanski wrote:
>
> > I have been asked to forward the below to the sage-devel list. Ticket
> > #6290 introduced a way to custom-define thelatexstyle of functions,
> > but it would be great if something
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:49:19 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In new symbolics, the default symbolic variables are complex.
> However, sometime it is useful/desirable to make the domain of
> variables to be real.
>
> Currently, there are no way to specify the domain of variables
Hi Golam,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
> I could implement above rather easily by exposing underlying Ginac
> feature. However, I am not sure how to submit patches for pynac/ginac
> as its not under "devel/sage".
The Pynac website is
http://pynac.sagemath.or
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi David,
Hi Minh
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Dr. David
>> Kirkby wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I forgot. Try:
>>>
>>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/Solaris-fixes/mpfr/mpfr-2.4.1p0.spkg
>>>
>>> it should m
Hi,
In new symbolics, the default symbolic variables are complex.
However, sometime it is useful/desirable to make the domain of
variables to be real.
Currently, there are no way to specify the domain of variables
in Sage although underlying Ginac allows it. For example: following
would to be g
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM, gsw wrote:
> The error message "O j: operation is not possible without
> initialized secure memory" is not a one from Sage, but from your
> system, and triggered somehow by calling the "ls" command.
> A Google search for the string "O j: operation
Hi Carlo,
strange indeed. I looked at log you posted, several spkg's install
fine, e.g.:
libgpg_error-1.6.p1
Machine:
Linux snehurka 2.6.18 #6 SMP Mon Nov 27 17:53:06 CET 2006 x86_64 GNU/
Linux
Deleting directories from past builds of previous/current versions of
libgpg_error-1.6.p1
Extracting p
Hi,
I'm trying to compile Sage 4.1 on a 64bit AMD computer (actually the
front node of a cluster) and I get a weird error.
The full log is here: http://carlo-hamalainen.net/sagetmp/install-2009-07-18.log
Here's the weird bit:
sage-spkg opencdk-0.6.6 2>&1
You must set the SAGE_ROOT environment
I'm not sure what the right plan for variables is, but if you're rewriting
polynomial printing, take a look at sage/rings/padics/padic_printing.pyx. I
think that having a "printer object" attached to a parent, allowing for a
different inheritance tree for the printing objects and more flexibility
Hi David,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Dr. David
> Kirkby wrote:
>
>
>
>> I forgot. Try:
>>
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/Solaris-fixes/mpfr/mpfr-2.4.1p0.spkg
>>
>> it should make no difference whatsoever, as the versio
40 matches
Mail list logo
