On Sep 19, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Bjarke Hammersholt Roune
> wrote:
>>
>> People have been writing mathematics software for a long time and so
>> people have been accumulating experiences about good ways and bad
>> ways
>> to do things. I'm won
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Bjarke Hammersholt Roune
wrote:
>
> People have been writing mathematics software for a long time and so
> people have been accumulating experiences about good ways and bad ways
> to do things. I'm wondering how much Sage development is informed by
> that experien
On Sep 19, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Craig Citro wrote:
>>> Okay, that seems like a valid point, though I still disagree. I
>>> think
>>> that we have two levels of consistency here: consistency with the
>>> function and consistency with the concept of interval arithmetic. I
>>> t
> I speak from a programmatic point of view, though. I'd like to not be
> surprised that the following doesn't work:
>
> a=sin(floor(RIF( (1.1,1.2) )))
> a.lower()
> a.upper()
>
>
> versus
>
> a=sin(floor(RIF((1.5,2.5
> a.lower()
> a.upper()
>
I'm a little confused -- *neither* of those woul
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Bjarke Hammersholt Roune
wrote:
>
> People have been writing mathematics software for a long time and so
> people have been accumulating experiences about good ways and bad ways
> to do things. I'm wondering how much Sage development is informed by
> that experien
Craig Citro wrote:
>> Okay, that seems like a valid point, though I still disagree. I think
>> that we have two levels of consistency here: consistency with the
>> function and consistency with the concept of interval arithmetic. I
>> think that in this case, the interval arithmetic requirement i
> Okay, that seems like a valid point, though I still disagree. I think
> that we have two levels of consistency here: consistency with the
> function and consistency with the concept of interval arithmetic. I
> think that in this case, the interval arithmetic requirement is more
> specific, so y
There seems to be a problem with its setup script. I am on Arch Linux
x86_64.
Here is the error log:
[timdu...@tim-pc sage-css]$ sage -f gnuplotpy-1.7.p3
Force installing gnuplotpy-1.7.p3
Calling sage-spkg on gnuplotpy-1.7.p3
You must set the SAGE_ROOT environment variable or
run this script fro
Craig Citro wrote:
>
> So I think that this suggests returning an Integer is the right move
> -- it's just a question of what to do if there *is* no single correct
> integer.
Okay, that seems like a valid point, though I still disagree. I think
that we have two levels of consistency here: cons
Hi Jason,
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> 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 developer's guide...
This is now ticket #6965
h
Francis,
On Sep 19, 2:12 am, fwc wrote:
> I have a draft of an implementation of the group of units for a finite
> field, which overlaps, of course, with the group in question. I
> modelled it on John Cremona's unit group code for number fields (sage/
> rings/number_field/unit_group.py).
Thank
People have been writing mathematics software for a long time and so
people have been accumulating experiences about good ways and bad ways
to do things. I'm wondering how much Sage development is informed by
that experience and however much it is, I think it is worthwhile to
think about how to in
On Sep 19, 11:41 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
>
> kcrisman wrote:
> > I don't know if there is a way to get at where coefficients of
> > elements in SR come from; they all just become symbolic expressions.
> > Even with the .coeffs() method, they still en
On Sep 19, 2:33 pm, Rob Beezer wrote:
> I think (2) is the best solution, and still viable. It strikes me as
> a case of "explicit is better." If you know you are over a non-field,
> then you can request hermite_form() and get what you are after,
> staying within your non-field. If you don't
Hi David,
looking at the $SAGE_ROOT/makefile and $SAGE_ROOT/spkg/install
scripts, and a newly unzipped Sage source distribution, one sees that
"prereq" does not lie in the directory $SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard/ but
in $SAGE_ROOT/spkg/base/. The latter directory does not exist in Sage
binary distribu
Hi folks,
Jono Bacon's book "The Art of Community" is now available for anyone
to download. See
http://www.jonobacon.org/2009/09/18/the-art-of-community-available-for-free-download/
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an
Hello everybody
I had a question to ask about the documentation we produce for Sage from the
docstrings When I look at page :
http://sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/graphs/graph.html#graph-format
I am, well.. A bit scared... I have something like one hundred screens of
descriptions of fun
I think (2) is the best solution, and still viable. It strikes me as
a case of "explicit is better." If you know you are over a non-field,
then you can request hermite_form() and get what you are after,
staying within your non-field. If you don't know better, or don't
care, having echelon_form(
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> Excellent !!!
>>
>> But is there a way to detect whether the user is using the notebook
>> ( in which case I use the html.table function ), or if he is using the
>> console ( in which case, do we have a similar funct
Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Excellent !!!
>
> But is there a way to detect whether the user is using the notebook
> ( in which case I use the html.table function ), or if he is using the
> console ( in which case, do we have a similar function for the
> console ? )
>
I believe:
from sage.server.sup
>> Well, I'm a little confused -- I thought that the whole point of
>> floor() and ceil() was to return Integers. Indeed:
In my opinion, this is a huge +1.
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscri
Excellent !!!
But is there a way to detect whether the user is using the notebook
( in which case I use the html.table function ), or if he is using the
console ( in which case, do we have a similar function for the
console ? )
Thanks !!!
Nathann
On Sep 19, 10:52 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> Will
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
kcrisman wrote:
> I don't know if there is a way to get at where coefficients of
> elements in SR come from; they all just become symbolic expressions.
> Even with the .coeffs() method, they still end up coming out as
> symbolic expressions. Burcin or ot
On Sep 18, 8:35 pm, RProgrammer wrote:
> 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.
>
Hi,
I was not able to download your log file but I tried to install it
myself and got an error that I hope is th
I want to update that, but are not sure how best to to it. Every time I
try to create a 0.4 version, so the 0.3 gets called instead. Is there
some trick to this?
If I set CC and CXX to be the Sun Studio compilers
(/opt/SUNSspro/bin/cc, /opt/SUNWspro/bin/CC respectively), then the
configure sc
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
>>> So what would your thoughts be, if someone one to propose package X is
>>> added, despite the fact it will not build on all of the following?
>>>
>>> 1) Build as 32-bit gcc on SPARC
>>> 2) Build as 64-bit gcc
On Sep 19, 4:14 am, Rob Beezer wrote:
> Has this group been implemented somewhere and I missed it? Is there
> some other powerful machinery for rings that might make this easier to
> implement? Any code elsewhere for a similar structure or purpose that
> I might look to for help in designing
Hi,
There is a tiny bug in the polydict implementation of multivariate
polynomial ring.
sage: from sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring import
MPolynomialRing_polydict_domain
sage: P.=MPolynomialRing_polydict_domain(GF(2),2,order='lex')
sage: f=x^2+y
sage: f.lt()
-x^2
sage: f.lt() == x^2
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2009, at 1:49 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>>
>> A while ago, there was a big discussion about making the echelon_form
>> and echelonize command for matrices automatically work over the
>> fraction
>> field of the base ring, sort
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>
> I think it makes a lot of sense; me and Robert Dodier already discussed
> such things on this list. Basically, you could construct symbolic random
> variables, set Bayesian priors etc., and then simulate from the resulting
> distributions using the best approach b
On Sep 19, 2009, at 1:49 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> A while ago, there was a big discussion about making the echelon_form
> and echelonize command for matrices automatically work over the
> fraction
> field of the base ring, sort of like how the inverse operation works
> now. The plan then was
William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Nathann Cohen
> wrote:
>> By the way, as such a .info() method is mainly meant to be read by
>> humans and not by scripts, how do you think its output should look
>> like ?
>> Returning a dictionary seems a bit rough... Is it possible to ni
> 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 per
A while ago, there was a big discussion about making the echelon_form
and echelonize command for matrices automatically work over the fraction
field of the base ring, sort of like how the inverse operation works
now. The plan then was to make the current echelon functions instead be
hermite f
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> By the way, as such a .info() method is mainly meant to be read by
> humans and not by scripts, how do you think its output should look
> like ?
> Returning a dictionary seems a bit rough... Is it possible to nicely
> print dictionaries as
By the way, as such a .info() method is mainly meant to be read by
humans and not by scripts, how do you think its output should look
like ?
Returning a dictionary seems a bit rough... Is it possible to nicely
print dictionaries as tables in Sage, or through LaTeX ? I know
nothing about the notebo
Jason Grout wrote:
> Pat LeSmithe wrote:
>> Sorry, if this is too much detail. The non-static case is still just
>> conjecture, but it should be easier to implement with your insight below.
> Wow, your ideas are fantastic. I'm really glad we have someone as
> capable as you working on this.
Th
37 matches
Mail list logo
