I should have posted this question here instead of at #6865, as the
answer is probably interesting to many people here. I'd heard things
about MANIFEST.in, but for some reason didn't have a clear idea of what
it was or what I should do about it. It would be nice if something was
added to the
Jason Grout wrote:
> Pat LeSmithe wrote:
>> Jason Grout wrote:
>>> Does the old flora theme not work with the new jqueryui? Last time we
>>> upgraded, we ended up keeping the old flora theme.
>> No, or at least, not well with a simple substitution. Apparently, a lot
>> has changed from 1.6r807s
Pat LeSmithe wrote:
> Jason Grout wrote:
>> Pat LeSmithe wrote:
>>> The immediate context, at least for me, is automatically generating
>>> images in the documentation (#6847, nothing yet). Currently, this uses
>>> a modified version of a matplotlib Sphinx directive with a new comment
>>> modifie
Pat LeSmithe wrote:
> Jason Grout wrote:
>> Does the old flora theme not work with the new jqueryui? Last time we
>> upgraded, we ended up keeping the old flora theme.
>
> No, or at least, not well with a simple substitution. Apparently, a lot
> has changed from 1.6r807svn to 1.7.2.
>
Hmmm,
Jason Grout wrote:
> Does the old flora theme not work with the new jqueryui? Last time we
> upgraded, we ended up keeping the old flora theme.
No, or at least, not well with a simple substitution. Apparently, a lot
has changed from 1.6r807svn to 1.7.2.
--~--~-~--~~~-
Jason Grout wrote:
> Pat LeSmithe wrote:
>> The immediate context, at least for me, is automatically generating
>> images in the documentation (#6847, nothing yet). Currently, this uses
>> a modified version of a matplotlib Sphinx directive with a new comment
>> modifier, e.g.
>>
>> .. plot::
>>
Sage-Devel,
I've got it in my head to implement the group of invertible elements
in Z_n as a useful tool for teaching introductory group theory. There
is of course, a very simple and straight-forward classification of
these abelian groups. But for someone new to the topic, they display
quite a
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Craig Citro wrote:
>
>> I really think that floor, ceil, and round should return intervals when
>> they are fed intervals. I thought that was the whole point of interval
>> arithmetic. Shouldn't sin(floor(interval)) be an interval? It won't
>> be if floor aut
> I really think that floor, ceil, and round should return intervals when
> they are fed intervals. I thought that was the whole point of interval
> arithmetic. Shouldn't sin(floor(interval)) be an interval? It won't
> be if floor automatically converts things to integers. Why should
> floor
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Pat LeSmithe wrote:
>> Maurizio wrote:
>>> Wouldn't be better if there was some sort of triangular end which
>>> points to the exact thick (when they are plotted)? Without them, the
>>> slider look a bit "approximate" or "inexact" :)
>>
>> A
Jason Grout wrote:
> Jason Grout wrote:
>> Carlo Hamalainen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Robert Dodier
>>> wrote:
Some random comments on
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/6827/probability_distribution.patch
>>> Between that and the better performance
Pat LeSmithe wrote:
> If I execute
>
> sage: circle((0,0), 3, rgbcolor=(0.8,0,0.7), aspect_ratio=1)
>
> or
>
> sage: a = circle((0,0), 3, rgbcolor=(0.8,0,0.7), aspect_ratio=1)
>
> followed by one of
>
> sage: a
> sage: a.show()
>
> I see a circle with aspect ratio 1. But if I run
>
> sage:
Pat LeSmithe wrote:
> Maurizio wrote:
>> Wouldn't be better if there was some sort of triangular end which
>> points to the exact thick (when they are plotted)? Without them, the
>> slider look a bit "approximate" or "inexact" :)
>
> A visible "notched" guide does not appear to be a built-in opti
Craig Citro wrote:
> So there are two things people could want from an interval i:
>
> 1) { floor(x) for x in i }
> 2) min { floor(x) for x in i }
>
> I think that David's unhappy with floor doing (2). The other proposal
> is to have x.floor() return the unique element in (1) when it's a
> singl
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Pat LeSmithe wrote:
>
> If I execute
>
> sage: circle((0,0), 3, rgbcolor=(0.8,0,0.7), aspect_ratio=1)
>
> or
>
> sage: a = circle((0,0), 3, rgbcolor=(0.8,0,0.7), aspect_ratio=1)
>
> followed by one of
>
> sage: a
> sage: a.show()
>
> I see a circle with aspect rat
Pat LeSmithe wrote:
> ':no-source:,' that affect an entire block.) Backstage, Sphinx
> generates and runs, e.g.,
> [...]
> What if we added a "display=None" flag? It it's set, show() makes no
> images but updates and *returns* a Graphics object? Neither change is
> essential, but they would sim
If I execute
sage: circle((0,0), 3, rgbcolor=(0.8,0,0.7), aspect_ratio=1)
or
sage: a = circle((0,0), 3, rgbcolor=(0.8,0,0.7), aspect_ratio=1)
followed by one of
sage: a
sage: a.show()
I see a circle with aspect ratio 1. But if I run
sage: a.save('foo.png')
the saved circle is squashed. I
So there are two things people could want from an interval i:
1) { floor(x) for x in i }
2) min { floor(x) for x in i }
I think that David's unhappy with floor doing (2). The other proposal
is to have x.floor() return the unique element in (1) when it's a
singleton, and raise an exception otherw
On 17-Sep-09, at 3:16 PM, David Harvey wrote:
>
> I disagree with this change. One of the main purposes of interval
> arithmetic is to be able to take a function f(x) that operates on
> floats, and pass in intervals instead, to determine the possible range
> of outputs a given input interval cou
On 18-Sep-09, at 4:22 PM, Craig Citro wrote:
>
>> Example:
>>
>> sage: floor(log(RIF(8)) / log(RIF(2)))
>> 3.?
>>
>> Should this be 2? What if it returned an Integer if there was a
>> unique floor (ceiling, etc.) and raised an exception otherwise?
>>
>
> I'm +1 on x.floor()/x.ceil() returning an
> Example:
>
> sage: floor(log(RIF(8)) / log(RIF(2)))
> 3.?
>
> Should this be 2? What if it returned an Integer if there was a
> unique floor (ceiling, etc.) and raised an exception otherwise?
>
I'm +1 on x.floor()/x.ceil() returning an Integer when possible, and
raising an Exception otherwise.
Maurizio wrote:
> Wouldn't be better if there was some sort of triangular end which
> points to the exact thick (when they are plotted)? Without them, the
> slider look a bit "approximate" or "inexact" :)
A visible "notched" guide does not appear to be a built-in option [1]:
http://jqueryui.com/
>From http://wiki.sagemath.org/days17/status:
== Friday September 18, 2009 ==
* Jared Weinstein: William and I proved if "so and so" then Heegner
class vanishes. Today: Actually write up proof.
* Amod Agashe: Checked my hunch that if an odd prime p divides a
Tamagawa number, but does not div
+1 to high_level_object.info()
Rob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://gro
install.log is the "relevant part of the install log"
sage.out is the result of copying and pasting the error text from the
terminal.
I've posted install.log at
http://www.2shared.com/file/7890515/60b6e690/install.html
And sage.out at http://www.2shared.com/file/7890527/a595d47f/sage.html
But I
>> I propose, but I'm perhaps missunderstanding.
>>
>> a.lower().floor()
>> a.upper().ceil()
>> a.center().round()
>
> I know about those and always eventually end up using them. But I
> don't consider them "easy".
>
Maybe include them and call them something like "ilower" and "iupper"?
I'm mode
On Sep 18, 2009, at 6:42 AM, niels wrote:
>
>> Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)? ...
>> sage:solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x) ...
>
> I think it should at least be clear over what ring the user wants to
> solve, then it is also clear which method should be used.
>
> * If the
William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Francois Maltey wrote:
>> Hello,
>>> sage: a = RIF(1.5,2.3)
>>>
>>> I see no way to easily get 1 2 or 3 from a.
>>>
>> I propose, but I'm perhaps missunderstanding.
>>
>> a.lower().floor()
>> a.upper().ceil()
>> a.center().round()
>
> I kno
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Francois Maltey wrote:
>
> Hello,
>> sage: a = RIF(1.5,2.3)
>>
>> I see no way to easily get 1 2 or 3 from a.
>>
>
> I propose, but I'm perhaps missunderstanding.
>
> a.lower().floor()
> a.upper().ceil()
> a.center().round()
I know about those and always eventual
Hello,
> sage: a = RIF(1.5,2.3)
>
> I see no way to easily get 1 2 or 3 from a.
>
I propose, but I'm perhaps missunderstanding.
a.lower().floor()
a.upper().ceil()
a.center().round()
François
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-d
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 3:16 PM, David Harvey wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree with this change. One of the main purposes of interval
>>> arithmetic is to be able to take a function f(x) that operates on
>>> floats, and pass in
On Sep 18, 9:42 am, niels wrote:
> > Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)? ...
> > sage:solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x) ...
>
> I think it should at least be clear over what ring the user wants to
> solve, then it is also clear which method should be used.
>
> * If the coeffi
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 at 12:52PM +0200, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> I have another question, linked to this one : Suppose the user has
>> some graph, and starts the function is_perfect ( which I have yet to
>> write, if possible, but this is just an e
On Sep 17, 5:01 pm, Dirk wrote:
> Sorry that I misunderstood the purpose of the question. But I would
> like to re-make one of my points.
>
> sage: solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x)
>
> [x == -0.0588115172555,
> x == (-1.33109991788 + 1.52241655184*I),
> x == (-1.33109991788 - 1.52241655184*I),
> x =
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2009, at 3:16 PM, David Harvey wrote:
>
>> I disagree with this change. One of the main purposes of interval
>> arithmetic is to be able to take a function f(x) that operates on
>> floats, and pass in intervals instead, to determine the possible range
>> of out
> Does find_root take general symbolic expressions (i.e., x==x^2)? ...
> sage:solve(x^5+x^3+17*x+1,x) ...
I think it should at least be clear over what ring the user wants to
solve, then it is also clear which method should be used.
* If the coefficients are algebraic/transcendental over QQ then
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 at 12:52PM +0200, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> I have another question, linked to this one : Suppose the user has
> some graph, and starts the function is_perfect ( which I have yet to
> write, if possible, but this is just an example ). If the graph is
> perfect, could we store it in
Hello everybody !!!
I'm still thinking along the lines of a previous thread :
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/8cb1773babe0c39f/c7be5668b9a5f18a?show_docid=c7be5668b9a5f18aand
often about the Graph class which is my main concern, but not the only
one I aim at :
Do you
Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
> On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:26 PM, Thierry Dumont wrote:
>
>> William Stein a écrit :
>>> 2009/9/17 Thierry Dumont :
Hi,
I want to launch 2 instances of sage on the same machine, and
even more
launch sage on 2 (3) machines sharing one directory by
39 matches
Mail list logo
