On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> hey, factoring-testing guys..
> If you make up factoring problems this way, you are probably not doing
> much testing of the real factoring algorithms. Repeated factors like
I for one am very grateful for this bug report. Andy is doing a superb jo
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:58 AM, rjf wrote:
>>
>> Reading the bug report it seemed to me that the code was determining
>> in some way that terms could be dropped off the sum because they were
>> too small to contribute, and then
>> sto
hey, factoring-testing guys..
If you make up factoring problems this way, you are probably not doing
much testing of the real factoring algorithms. Repeated factors like
this of different degree are detected by so-called square-free
factorization.
The time to factor F in Maxima is, to the resoluti
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> This is fixed in some trac ticket. Hang on a second... #5556. Go
> ahead and review the patch!
Nope, that doesn't do the job. Do you want to fix it on that ticket
or should I make another?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~---
On Oct 2, 5:32 pm, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:58 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> > Reading the bug report it seemed to me that the code was determining
> > in some way that terms could be dropped off the sum because they were
> > too small to contribute, and then
> > stopped addin
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:58 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> Reading the bug report it seemed to me that the code was determining
> in some way that terms could be dropped off the sum because they were
> too small to contribute, and then
> stopped adding them in. Is that the "simple implementation bug"? Or is
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:17 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> Oh, if you are not really evaluating polynomials but just adding up a
> long list of numbers, then you can try some kind of compensating sum
> e.g.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_summation_algorithm
>
> Though such things are perhaps unnecessar
Oh, if you are not really evaluating polynomials but just adding up a
long list of numbers, then you can try some kind of compensating sum
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_summation_algorithm
Though such things are perhaps unnecessary if you are happy with just
increasing the precision of
On Oct 3, 12:33 am, Paul Böhm wrote:
> we ported scipy to google wave before. we have code, there's some
> trickery involved. same stuff would work for sage i'm sure.
> i can help you get set up, but can't maintain the code. sound good?
sounds cool! i've looked at how the wolfram alpha integrati
Reading the bug report it seemed to me that the code was determining
in some way that terms could be dropped off the sum because they were
too small to contribute, and then
stopped adding them in. Is that the "simple implementation bug"? Or is
that an additional bad idea?
As for me looking it up
hi, not sure if my last mail came through:
we ported scipy to google wave before. we have code, there's some
trickery involved. same stuff would work for sage i'm sure.
i can help you get set up, but can't maintain the code. sound good?
get in touch with me! (not really reading this list)
oh scr
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 10:10:54AM -0700, javier wrote:
> I jst realized that the check is realized via Category_over_base_ring.
> Sorry for the noise.
> Positive review for bimodules.py
For modules and friends, yes, but actually not for bimodules (which
inherits directly from Category.
I am fix
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> This is fixed in some trac ticket. Hang on a second... #5556. Go
> ahead and review the patch! I discovered this completely by accident
> while fixing another gamma bug. Nasty, isn't it?
Nice! I'll review that tonight.
>
> - kcrisman
>
>
This is fixed in some trac ticket. Hang on a second... #5556. Go
ahead and review the patch! I discovered this completely by accident
while fixing another gamma bug. Nasty, isn't it?
- kcrisman
On Oct 2, 1:51 pm, Tom Boothby wrote:
> Intentional:
>
> cython("print (0)[0]")
>
> Unintentional:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:46 AM, John H Palmieri
>> wrote:
>>> Through tickets #6864 and #7059, Karl-Dieter Crisman and I have been
>>> trying to stamp out the practice in which doctests save files in the
>>> current
Intentional:
cython("print (0)[0]")
Unintentional:
gamma(CDF(1000))
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 optio
Hi,
I'm would also be thrilled to get an invite if someone
has some leftover invitations!
Best,
Henning Ulfarsson
On Oct 2, 3:50 pm, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Well, if one of these persons is reading this thread and has
> invitations to spare :-D
>
> Thanks
>
> Nathann
>
> On Oct 2,
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:14 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> I think that this is one of those times that you might like to look up
> in the literature how to do something, instead of pulling an
> "algorithm" out of your posterior. Stable evaluation of polynomials is
> the subject.
FYI, this is a simple imple
William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:46 AM, John H Palmieri
> wrote:
>> Through tickets #6864 and #7059, Karl-Dieter Crisman and I have been
>> trying to stamp out the practice in which doctests save files in the
>> current working directory -- among other things, it's annoying to hav
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:46 AM, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> Through tickets #6864 and #7059, Karl-Dieter Crisman and I have been
> trying to stamp out the practice in which doctests save files in the
> current working directory -- among other things, it's annoying to have
> your directory littered
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> I think that this is one of those times that you might like to look up
> in the literature how to do something, instead of pulling an
> "algorithm" out of your posterior. Stable evaluation of polynomials is
> the subject.
It would be really cool if
I think that this is one of those times that you might like to look up
in the literature how to do something, instead of pulling an
"algorithm" out of your posterior. Stable evaluation of polynomials is
the subject.
On Oct 1, 10:01 pm, Carlo Hamalainen
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:54 PM,
Through tickets #6864 and #7059, Karl-Dieter Crisman and I have been
trying to stamp out the practice in which doctests save files in the
current working directory -- among other things, it's annoying to have
your directory littered with files like "test.png", "zz.png", and
"my_general_distributio
Harald Schilly wrote:
> just looked at it briefly, my question: is "invalid" and "duplicate"
> covered by an immediate closed? imagine, if i search for a keyword in
> open bugs, but that keyword matches a duplicate which is closed (and
> maybe not covered by the search), i miss it and might open a
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> I think rather than having several kinds of needs_work states, we
>>> should have a new field. Thus we could have "needs_work" with the
>>> "issues" field being documentation, doctests, rebasing, ...
>> That makes sense. However, then I think we're back to the problem
Hi,
After being rock solid for 9 months, the VMware server crashed badly
on boxen.math.washington.edu, and we absolutely could not get it to
work despite repeated clean reinstalls, reboots, etc. Repeatedly
tempted by things appearing to work, I tried to migrate the virtual
infrastructure to
Well, if one of these persons is reading this thread and has
invitations to spare :-D
Thanks
Nathann
On Oct 2, 5:03 pm, Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Oct 2, 3:49 pm, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > Is there anyone among us who
> > already tried it ?
>
> Yes, me, wave is currently in a l
On Oct 2, 3:49 pm, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Is there anyone among us who
> already tried it ?
Yes, me, wave is currently in a limited preview mode, just like gmail
was in it's early days. means, i can invite 8 people and yes, some of
them are from sage, so, once they are also wavyfied, you can ask
I learnt about Google Wave a few days ago and thought it would be
great to work on Sage through this Even though for the moment,
very few people have access to it. Is there anyone among us who
already tried it ?
I filled a form on their site to obtain one, but they seem to say
there won't be
I was thinking of making some changes to sage-env, with the main aim of
improving portability and getting rid of GNUisms. I'd be intersted in
any thoughts on the following, or other things which could be done. I've
also made some changes to 'prereq-0.4',
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/ki
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Given all the recent work on the Solaris port (kudos to David for
> that), I'm sorry to say that the FreeBSD port hasn't gone anywhere for
> the past 6 weeks or so.
>
> I've just uploaded my latest patches (for 4.1.1) into the Wiki
> (http://wiki.sagemath.org/freebsd/sage-4.
On Sep 30, 10:49 pm, Bill Page wrote:
> http://wave.google.com
here is an example for wolfram alpha
http://code.google.com/p/wavealpha/
h
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, s
just looked at it briefly, my question: is "invalid" and "duplicate"
covered by an immediate closed? imagine, if i search for a keyword in
open bugs, but that keyword matches a duplicate which is closed (and
maybe not covered by the search), i miss it and might open a new issue
that is a duplicate
Håkan Granath wrote:
> A minor point: some documentation on keyboard shortcuts was added to
> the reference manual in #6556, but the sage/server/notebook/config
> section
> was removed in #6840.
Thanks very much for pointing this out. I'll create a new ticket and
patch to bring config.py back in
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:06 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:03 AM, William Stein
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 1, 1:29 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
> I just started one instance
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:03 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 1, 1:29 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
>>> William Stein wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>>
>>> > I just started one instance of virtualbox on
>>> > boxen.math.washington.edu... which had th
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 1:29 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > I just started one instance of virtualbox on
>> > boxen.math.washington.edu... which had the effect of completely
>> > crashes
>> > *all* theVMwarevirtual ma
37 matches
Mail list logo
