Jason Grout a écrit :
> ...
>- algorithm='scipy' -- call the scipy numerical integration routines
> (maybe make this the default if it is faster than gsl).
>
> ..
I do not think that this is the only criterion... How do these methods
compare from the numerical point of view? Making
William Stein wrote:
> I just want to personally thank you for your comments in this thread
> (and others!). I think they were extremely helpful and clarifying, at
> least to me, in understanding the issue being discussed and coming up
> with several examples to... show you are in fact right.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>> Note that we already do that for things like parametric_plot,
>> derivatives, etc.
>
> And it's a continual pain in the ass. Telling the difference between
> a list, tuple, sequence, iterator, vector, multiple arguments, etc...
> in Pyt
On Oct 27, 7:17 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> What is the reason for insisting that the
> thing must be a RingElement (as opposed to, say, an Element)?
One reason I could see is because elements of the SymbolicRing are
supposed to be ring elements, and vectors generally are not. However,
there are a
Nick Alexander wrote:
>> Note that we already do that for things like parametric_plot,
>> derivatives, etc.
>
> And it's a continual pain in the ass. Telling the difference between
> a list, tuple, sequence, iterator, vector, multiple arguments, etc...
> in Python, it's just all so inconsist
> Note that we already do that for things like parametric_plot,
> derivatives, etc.
And it's a continual pain in the ass. Telling the difference between
a list, tuple, sequence, iterator, vector, multiple arguments, etc...
in Python, it's just all so inconsistent. But it seems like the
fe
Following up on the recent thread "coercion error: calling functions
with vector inputs", I am trying to get SR(vector([1,2,])) to work.
In symbolic/ring.pyx, we have in the _element_constructor_ function,
line 269 or so, the default case:
elif isinstance(x, RingElement):
I definitely like the ability to call different libraries with an
algorithm argument. It would also be nice to include mpmath as an
option since it support many different algorithms and arbitrary
precision.
On Oct 27, 5:05 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> Writing some class worksheets yesterday exposed
William Stein wrote:
> Before voting, may I register some concerns?
>
> 1. Recall your example:
>
> sage: t = var('t')
> sage: r=vector([t,t^2])
> sage: f(x,y)=x^2+y
> sage: f(r)
> boom.
>
> If we make f(r) work (as you propose), note that the following will
> still not work, and can never eve
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Nick Alexander wrote:
>>> Why do you think that f, which is a function from R^2->R^1, should not
>>> naturally be able to take inputs that live in R^2?
>>
>> I don't. But that's not the way that Python works, and the existing
>> implementat
Nick Alexander wrote:
>> Why do you think that f, which is a function from R^2->R^1, should not
>> naturally be able to take inputs that live in R^2?
>
> I don't. But that's not the way that Python works, and the existing
> implementation tries to make f(x, y) look like a Python function of
kcrisman wrote:
>>> What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
>>> functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
>>> commands. Should we only define one of them?
>> Is integral_numerical a possibility (for those who like tab-completions)?
>
> I don'
On Oct 27, 7:34 pm, Nick Alexander wrote:
> > Why do you think that f, which is a function from R^2->R^1, should not
> > naturally be able to take inputs that live in R^2?
>
> I don't. But that's not the way that Python works, and the existing
> implementation tries to make f(x, y) look like
>
> > What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
> > functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
> > commands. Should we only define one of them?
>
> Is integral_numerical a possibility (for those who like tab-completions)?
I don't see why it's a
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> David Joyner wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jason Grout
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
>>> functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
>>> c
David Joyner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
>> functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
>> commands. Should we only define one of them?
>>
>
> Is integra
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
...
>
> What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
> functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
> commands. Should we only define one of them?
>
Is integral_numerical a possibility (for tho
> Why do you think that f, which is a function from R^2->R^1, should not
> naturally be able to take inputs that live in R^2?
I don't. But that's not the way that Python works, and the existing
implementation tries to make f(x, y) look like a Python function of
two variables. I would be fin
Martin Albrecht wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> in the thread
>
> http://is.gd/4EMT8
>
> David and I agreed that M4RI should have a better, more robust and cross-
> platform mechanism to check for cache sizes.
>
> Thus I wrote a little C program to check for the cache size using timings of
> rand
William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> Writing some class worksheets yesterday exposed me to our
>> inconsistencies in numerical integration commands. Currently:
>>
>> * numerical_integral calls gsl to do integration, and the syntax is
>> numerical_integr
On Oct 27, 2009, at 2:35 PM, gsw wrote:
> Well,
>
> matter-of-factly, there is unhappiness in the Sage user community.
> There obviously is the desire, and sometimes (think of lectures) a
> user's need to settle for *a single one* Sage version for quite some
> time to come, say a year or so. Only
Nick Alexander wrote:
>
> On 27-Oct-09, at 3:17 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> I was looking at how to make my calc 3 calculations easier to
>> understand
>> by calling a multivariable function with a vector input. I ended up
>> with a coercion error. I'm not that familiar with how to work with
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Writing some class worksheets yesterday exposed me to our
> inconsistencies in numerical integration commands. Currently:
>
> * numerical_integral calls gsl to do integration, and the syntax is
> numerical_integral(f, start, end) or numeric
On 27-Oct-09, at 3:17 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> I was looking at how to make my calc 3 calculations easier to
> understand
> by calling a multivariable function with a vector input. I ended up
> with a coercion error. I'm not that familiar with how to work with
> the
> coercion system. W
See for the latest development:
http://oeisf.org/
Jaap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 thi
I was looking at how to make my calc 3 calculations easier to understand
by calling a multivariable function with a vector input. I ended up
with a coercion error. I'm not that familiar with how to work with the
coercion system. Would it be easy to make the call "f(r)" work below?
Thanks,
> > > > Hm, probably this is the only available way how to solveinequalities
> > > > and at least the wrapper should be written.
> > > > I can try it, but not within these 14 days.
The patch is here: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7325
Robert
--~--~-~--~~~-
Ubuntu 8.10 64bit Intel Q6600 (Core2Quad)
./cache
8 0.024 7.431
16 0.050 2.085
32 0.102 2.026
64 0.251 2.465
128 0.468 1.866
256 0.557 1.192
512 1.151 2.065
1024 3.055 2.654
2048 6.898 2.258
409615.7
Dear David, dear Robert,
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:53:41PM -0700, David Kohel wrote:
> If I understand what existed and what is proposed,
(for short, and semantically speaking, the current Groupoid is exactly
what existed before)
> then I vote for the category Groupoids() and no argume
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> What about adopting a simpler strategy?
> What do you think about this: every 6 months (or 9, or 12 whatever),
> the developers are asked to focus on producing bugfixing instead of
> introducing new features.
Asked by whom? For how long? And
It seems the walltime is always zero for you, I'll see if I can reproduce it
somewhere.
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: mar
On Tuesday 27 October 2009, Michael Welsh wrote:
> I dunno. How do I find out?
Mhh, good question you could send the exact version number of your CPU and I
could start googling. Or, if you installed Sage from source you could:
m...@road:~$ grep "cache size" /usr/local/sage-4.1.2/install.log
I've got 32K/32K (which may mean 64K) according to
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/stats/imac-core-2-duo-2.66-20-inch-aluminum-early-2009-specs.html
On 28/10/2009, at 10:18 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> does your C2D have 64K of L1? (IIRC there are no C2D with 64K data
> L1, but I
>
I dunno. How do I find out?
On 28/10/2009, at 10:18 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> does your C2D have 64K of L1? (IIRC there are no C2D with 64K data
> L1, but I
> do get confused by Intel's marketing from time to time)
--
http://yomcat.geek.nz
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~-
On Tuesday 27 October 2009, Michael Welsh wrote:
> OSX Dore 2 Duo.
>
> Gordon:Downloads yomcat$ ./cache
> 8 0.004 1.944
> 16 0.008 2.010
> 32 0.019 2.413
> 64 0.066 3.501
>128 0.226 3.405
>256 0.479 2.121
>512 0.983
Martin Albrecht wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> in the thread
>
> http://is.gd/4EMT8
>
> David and I agreed that M4RI should have a better, more robust and cross-
> platform mechanism to check for cache sizes.
>
> Thus I wrote a little C program to check for the cache size using timings of
> rand
Writing some class worksheets yesterday exposed me to our
inconsistencies in numerical integration commands. Currently:
* numerical_integral calls gsl to do integration, and the syntax is
numerical_integral(f, start, end) or numerical_integral(f, (start, end)).
* if you have a symbolic expres
OSX Dore 2 Duo.
Gordon:Downloads yomcat$ ./cache
8 0.004 1.944
16 0.008 2.010
32 0.019 2.413
64 0.066 3.501
128 0.226 3.405
256 0.479 2.121
512 0.983 2.055
1024 1.997 2.031
2048 4.043 2.025
409
What about adopting a simpler strategy?
What do you think about this: every 6 months (or 9, or 12 whatever),
the developers are asked to focus on producing bugfixing instead of
introducing new features. In this way, what happens is that one
release every "n" months could be considered more stable
Hi there,
in the thread
http://is.gd/4EMT8
David and I agreed that M4RI should have a better, more robust and cross-
platform mechanism to check for cache sizes.
Thus I wrote a little C program to check for the cache size using timings of
random-ish memory access.
The program is availab
I tried increasing the video ram, and then also increasing the system
ram, but no matter what this still crashes for me on OS X 10.4.11. I
am still curious if anyone else running 10.4.11 sees this too. I
suppose this is a sign I should finally upgrade that machine...
-Marshall
On Oct 27, 2:28
On Oct 27, 11:38 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> slabbe wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > On Oct 27, 12:37 am, John H Palmieri wrote:
> >> Trac ticket #6820 (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6820)
> >> makes the following change:
>
> >> sage: help()
>
> >> no longer runs the interactive Python help uti
On Oct 27, 9:57 am, Philippe Saade wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM, John H Palmieri
> wrote:>> For the torus (correct me if I am wrong), the 0-th Betti number
> should be 1.
> >> This would agree with the formula given for the Euler Characteristic
> >> in that case : X = B_0 - B_1 +
slabbe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Oct 27, 12:37 am, John H Palmieri wrote:
>> Trac ticket #6820 (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6820)
>> makes the following change:
>>
>> sage: help()
>>
>> no longer runs the interactive Python help utility.
>
> +1, but I personally would like help(MODU
Francois Maltey wrote:
> kcrisman wrote
>> It would also be great to see how to integrate your ideas with
>> #6878, which probably should still stand alone as a ticket since one
>> might wish to exclude points for reasons other than asymptotes or
>> jumps.
>>
>> Why not try to make this patch with
2009/10/27 Martin Albrecht :
> I tend to agree with your point when it comes to the number of CPUs, that
> probably should be run-time instead of compile time. Btw. I just checked, this
> information isn't even used!
>
> This is now:
>
> http://bitbucket.org/malb/m4ri/issue/16/remove-check-for-nu
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:06 AM, ghtdak wrote:
>
> Someday I guess I'll go and see what I might be doing different than
> whats expected or normal... Shell programming and management is a
> magical world that I don't claim to have conquered and very simple
> changes to the .*rc files can have ma
William Stein wrote:
> Another analogous project would be Ubuntu, which has both say 9.10
> (any moment now), and 8.04.LTS. Probably the LTS releases of Ubuntu
> are the most successful project I can think of right now as far as
> stable/unstable goes. This is also nice because a Linux
> dis
kcrisman wrote:
>> "Perhaps this bug is not a new problem. The answer of Maxima depends on the
>> flag triginversers.
>>
>> (%i36) integrate(sqrt(sin(t)^2+cos(t)^2),t,0,2*%pi),triginverses:true;
>> (%o36) %pi
>>
>> (%i37) integrate(sqrt(sin(t)^2+cos(t)^2),t,0,2*%pi),triginverses:all;
>> (%o37) 2 %
Hi Harald,
Build farm binaries for 4.2 are here:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/binaries/
Note that the virtualbox upgrade isn't posted yet, since it is much
more of a hassle still. I intend to post that tomorrow.
William
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
U
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
>> For the torus (correct me if I am wrong), the 0-th Betti number should be 1.
>> This would agree with the formula given for the Euler Characteristic
>> in that case : X = B_0 - B_1 + B_2 = 0
>
>
> The homology is reduced, so H_0 = Z, so
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder why everybody (*) making suggestions has never put together a
>> single Sage release themselves, yet everybody who has done significant
>> work put
Someday I guess I'll go and see what I might be doing different than
whats expected or normal... Shell programming and management is a
magical world that I don't claim to have conquered and very simple
changes to the .*rc files can have massive unintended consequences.
In my case, when I get the
On Oct 27, 7:54 am, Philippe Saade wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> There is an example in the official Reference Manual about
> SimplicialComplex and Betti Numbers and Euler Characteristic.
>
> S = SimplicialComplex(3, [[0,1], [1,2], [0,2]]) # circle
> T = S.product(S) # torus
> T
>
> Simplicial comple
Hi all.
There is an example in the official Reference Manual about
SimplicialComplex and Betti Numbers and Euler Characteristic.
S = SimplicialComplex(3, [[0,1], [1,2], [0,2]]) # circle
T = S.product(S) # torus
T
Simplicial complex with 16 vertices and 18 facets
and
T.euler_characterist
On Oct 27, 1:28 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> > My answer to William Stein's question is double: first of all, I think
> > that sometimes people less involved than being active developers can
> > give suggestions from another perspective, and I ho
On Oct 26, 7:37 pm, Nick Alexander wrote:
> I opted out of this discussion
> because no matter what is agreed to, I don't see anything changing:
> Sage is, for better or for worse, driven by developers. All talk of
> releases marked stable, etc, doesn't fit with that reality.
>
> Nick
It
> (%i1) triginverses;
> (%o1) all
> (%i2) asin(sin(x));
> (%o2) x
> (%i3) asin(sin(x)), triginverses=true;
> (%o3) asin(sin(x))
>
> Is that going to affect any Sage stuff if we revert to 'all'?
> (Presumably not, since there don't seem to have been any other
> complaints about this.)
Sorry for a
> * Compose a literate Sage program foo.rst in reST, using "sage:"
> prompts for code.
>
> * Have "sage foo.rst" execute just the code, like doctesting.
it does not work, sage does not understand plain rst like this:
---> cut <---
Title 1
===
some explanations for the code
sage: var(
> I think the test for cach size and number of CPUs should be removed
> from the configure script, for several reasons.
>
> From what I can gather from the autoconf list
>
> * Both macros, which you took from the auotconf macro archive, are
> badly written - not just in what they do, but in a ve
> Maybe we can set an option to fix this:
>
> "Perhaps this bug is not a new problem. The answer of Maxima depends on the
> flag triginversers.
>
> (%i36) integrate(sqrt(sin(t)^2+cos(t)^2),t,0,2*%pi),triginverses:true;
> (%o36) %pi
>
> (%i37) integrate(sqrt(sin(t)^2+cos(t)^2),t,0,2*%pi),triginvers
On Oct 27, 11:34 am, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I am working through my todo list and thus revisited this thread. Right now, I
> am not sure what I can do to help you to fix the problems you identified (due
> to lack of knowledge about the platforms in question) On the other hand, I
> "Perhaps this bug is not a new problem. The answer of Maxima depends on the
> flag triginversers.
>
> (%i36) integrate(sqrt(sin(t)^2+cos(t)^2),t,0,2*%pi),triginverses:true;
> (%o36) %pi
>
> (%i37) integrate(sqrt(sin(t)^2+cos(t)^2),t,0,2*%pi),triginverses:all;
> (%o37) 2 %pi
>
Okay, let's check
Hi,
On Oct 27, 12:37 am, John H Palmieri wrote:
> Trac ticket #6820 (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6820)
> makes the following change:
>
> sage: help()
>
> no longer runs the interactive Python help utility.
+1, but I personally would like help(MODULE) to still work.
Sébastien
Hi David,
I am working through my todo list and thus revisited this thread. Right now, I
am not sure what I can do to help you to fix the problems you identified (due
to lack of knowledge about the platforms in question) On the other hand, I am
very interested in making M4RI truly cross-platf
kcrisman wrote
> It would also be great to see how to integrate your ideas with
> #6878, which probably should still stand alone as a ticket since one
> might wish to exclude points for reasons other than asymptotes or
> jumps.
>
> Why not try to make this patch within the current plot code...
I s
Hi folks,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wonder why everybody (*) making suggestions has never put together a
> single Sage release themselves, yet everybody who has done significant
> work putting together Sage releases, organizing the web page, mirror
> bin
I've just been trying this on Ubuntu and had the same problem.
Increasing the video ram in the virtual machine from 4 to 16 MB fixed
it, and now it works. (At least, I'm pretty sure that was the change
that fixed it.)
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 14:01 -0700, mhampton wrote:
> I haven't tried it on Wind
68 matches
Mail list logo
