Re: [sage-devel] Sage 4.3.4 released

On Mar 19, 2010, at 23:52 , Minh Nguyen wrote: Hi folks, Sage 4.3.4 was released on March 19, 2010. It is available at http://www.sagemath.org/download.html * About Sage (http://www.sagemath.org) Built two ways: as an upgrade to rc0 and from scratch. Both builds completed with n

[sage-devel] method int_repr only works for small finite fields

Hi folks, Alasdair reported an inconsistency in the finite field implementation. I have included his original report below. For a finite field of, say 2^6 elements, an object representing an element of such a field has a method called int_repr() that returns the object's integer representation. H

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 released

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Alec Mihailovs wrote: > On Mar 17, 8:02 pm, William Stein wrote: > >> I didn't realize that the VirtualBox distro hadn't been upgraded in so long. >> I'll try hard to upgrade it to 4.3.4 and post a new version before I >> leave for Canada on Sunday morning.   (Upg

[sage-devel] Re: no GSoC for Sage

On Mar 20, 12:39 pm, "Burcin Erocal" wrote: > I think we did a good job preparing an application They said there will be an irc session where not accepted organizations can ask why, that might be useful for the futures! +1 to organizing tickets by the level of complexity. i can try to list easy

Re: Fwd: [sage-devel] GSOC 2010 proposal

Hi Carlos, On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Carlos Lopez wrote: > is > there a tag like "easytofix" on the trac? The closest thing I can think of is those tickets whose priority is "trivial" [1]. > or some analog? We are discussing implementing such a tag. See a recent discussion on sage-d

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4 released

William Stein wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Jaap Spies wrote: Minh Nguyen wrote: Hi folks, Sage 4.3.4 was released on March 19, 2010. It is available at http://www.sagemath.org/download.html * About Sage (http://www.sagemath.org) Sage is developed by volunteers and c

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4 released

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Jaap Spies wrote: > Minh Nguyen wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> Sage 4.3.4 was released on March 19, 2010. It is available at >> >>            http://www.sagemath.org/download.html >> >> * About Sage (http://www.sagemath.org) >> >> Sage is developed by volunteers and

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Guidelines for updating standard packages

On 20 March 2010 17:01, Rishikesh wrote: > I have problem with #1 and #4 > > with #1 > spkgs are almost always not created by the authors of the package. > Compiler warnings happen in compiling almost every  package. It will > be too much expect that people creating spkg eliminate compiler > warni

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Category for IntegerModRing(n)

On Mar 20, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Florent Hivert wrote: Hi Robert, I wonder if the category infrastructure would support a pervasive command like R=IntegerModRing(7) R.promote(Fields(), with_check=True) R.category() Category of fields with the construction doing no extra work, and the promo

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4 released

Minh Nguyen wrote: Hi folks, Sage 4.3.4 was released on March 19, 2010. It is available at http://www.sagemath.org/download.html * About Sage (http://www.sagemath.org) Sage is developed by volunteers and combines over 90 open source packages. It is available for download from www.

[sage-devel] Re: Category for IntegerModRing(n)

>From the user point of view, without reading the documentation, I would expect IntegerModRing(n) be a ring, IntegerModField(p) be a field, and Integer ModAbelianGroup(n) be an Abelian group. So I would go with option (2). It would be rather confusing to define something that you think is a ring,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Category for IntegerModRing(n)

Hi Robert, >> I wonder if the category infrastructure would support a pervasive >> command like >> >> R=IntegerModRing(7) >> R.promote(Fields(), with_check=True) >> R.category() >> Category of fields >> >> with the construction doing no extra work, and the promote method >> having defaults

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Guidelines for updating standard packages

On Mar 19, 8:46 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote: 1) Are there any warnings about depreciated options? If so, you need to understand why the option was given, why it depreciated, and what you should do about it. On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Rishikesh wrote: I have problem with #1 and #4

[sage-devel] Re: Category for IntegerModRing(n)

Thanks, Florent. That's what I suspected, given my nascent understanding of how categories work. So an irrevocable decision needs to be made at construction time, it would seem. Rob On Mar 20, 10:55 am, Florent Hivert wrote: >    Hi Rob, > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:38:15AM -0700, Rob Beezer

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Category for IntegerModRing(n)

On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Rob Beezer wrote: I wonder if the category infrastructure would support a pervasive command like R=IntegerModRing(7) R.promote(Fields(), with_check=True) R.category() Category of fields with the construction doing no extra work, and the promote method having defau

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC)

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> Yes. I would like a policy that spkgs are only updated on x.y releases, >> but I'm in the minority with you in trying to get release numbers to mean >> something more concrete. > > Robert, I doubt we are in such a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Category for IntegerModRing(n)

Hi Rob, On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:38:15AM -0700, Rob Beezer wrote: > I wonder if the category infrastructure would support a pervasive > command like > > R=IntegerModRing(7) > R.promote(Fields(), with_check=True) > R.category() > Category of fields > > with the construction doing no extra wo

[sage-devel] Re: Category for IntegerModRing(n)

I wonder if the category infrastructure would support a pervasive command like R=IntegerModRing(7) R.promote(Fields(), with_check=True) R.category() Category of fields with the construction doing no extra work, and the promote method having defaults and exceptions consistent with John and Nick's

Re: [sage-devel] Category for IntegerModRing(n)

On 20-Mar-10, at 8:50 AM, John Cremona wrote: I would say that you should never test for primality unless specifically required, e.g. if the user asks is_field() (after which the category could be upgraded? I don't know if that is possible). I would always use GF(p) rather than IntegerMod(p)

[sage-devel] Re: Guidelines for updating standard packages

I have problem with #1 and #4 with #1 spkgs are almost always not created by the authors of the package. Compiler warnings happen in compiling almost every package. It will be too much expect that people creating spkg eliminate compiler warnings, even though the package compiles. with #4 I agree

Re: Fwd: [sage-devel] GSOC 2010 proposal

Thank you for your help. As some of us may found out, Sage was not accepted as a mentoring organization for this year. However, I still would like to work on this project, I sent a e-mail to the gsoc-dedicated PSF list asking if it's possible to work under their name. I had read your comments bef

[sage-devel] Re: Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Florent Hivert wrote: Hi, On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 02:22:20PM +, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Dima Pasechnik wrote: I suppose you can edit install-spkg in unpacked gd spkg, i.e. SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard/gd-2.0.35.p4.spkg ans specify --with-libiconv-prefix=... in the ./configure call. Tha

[sage-devel] Re: sage-4.3.4 does not build on Mandriva 2010 64 bits

Jean-Yves Thibon wrote: Note: sage-4.3.3 did build correctly on the same machine. - [...@scriabine sage-4.3.4]$ uname -a Linux scriabine 2.6.31.12-server-1mnb #1 SMP Tue Jan 26 03:35:57 EST 2010 x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5540 @ 2.

[sage-devel] sage-4.3.4 does not build on Mandriva 2010 64 bits

Note: sage-4.3.3 did build correctly on the same machine. - [...@scriabine sage-4.3.4]$ uname -a Linux scriabine 2.6.31.12-server-1mnb #1 SMP Tue Jan 26 03:35:57 EST 2010 x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5540 @ 2.53GHz GNU/Linux -

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Hi, On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 02:22:20PM +, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> I suppose you can edit install-spkg in unpacked gd spkg, i.e. >> SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard/gd-2.0.35.p4.spkg >> ans specify --with-libiconv-prefix=... in the ./configure call. > > That looks very s

[sage-devel] Re: Category for IntegerModRing(n)

On Mar 20, 8:07 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery" wrote: > Cayley graph feature (#7555) Cayley TABLES (and other "operation tables"). Cayley GRAPHS are due to Moretti/Miller/Thiery. ;-) > That was essentially a one liner I can testify to that. If you haven't been following the Categories work, now mig

Re: [sage-devel] Category for IntegerModRing(n)

I would say that you should never test for primality unless specifically required, e.g. if the user asks is_field() (after which the category could be upgraded? I don't know if that is possible). I would always use GF(p) rather than IntegerMod(p) for when I know p is prime. it is is vital in tea

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Hi there, > Apparently according to Dima, there is. This is now > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8567 > > but if you can do this, please do, as I don't have much time now. Shouldn't be #8567 a blocker for 4.3.4 (but maybe it's too late)... Cheers, Florent -- To post to this

Re: [sage-devel] Category for IntegerModRing(n)

Hi There, > In order to let Rob use IntegerModRing(n) as example of finite > additive group for his cool Cayley graph feature (#7555), I just wrote > a patch (#8562) letting IntegerModRing(n) use the category > framework. That was essentially a one liner, plus minor updates here > and there,

[sage-devel] Category for IntegerModRing(n)

Hi! In order to let Rob use IntegerModRing(n) as example of finite additive group for his cool Cayley graph feature (#7555), I just wrote a patch (#8562) letting IntegerModRing(n) use the category framework. That was essentially a one liner, plus minor updates here and there, and all test

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

I might be often engaged in a risky spkg behaviour, but I broke three or four Sage installations by upgrading. The problems ensued were often subtle, e.g. a strange state of hg stuff, or a function in a newly installed package complaining (at runtime!) that some g95-related .so file is missing

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

Robert Bradshaw wrote: On Mar 20, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Dima Pasechnik wrote: well, actually, it might remove a confusion over this option is the upgrade path is not posted as the 1st thing in every release announcement. Yes, perhaps it should be added at the bottom, wit

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Exterior algebras.

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 01:00:38PM -0700, bump wrote: > > I hope other people respond, too. I would suggest looking at > > > > > > > > and the code in sage/algebras/quatalg (for quaternion algebras): use > > this as one model for how to impleme

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

On Mar 20, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Dima Pasechnik wrote: well, actually, it might remove a confusion over this option is the upgrade path is not posted as the 1st thing in every release announcement. Yes, perhaps it should be added at the bottom, with a note such as "Altho

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Jaap Spies wrote: Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Dr. David Kirkby wrote: I'm too busy to search for it, but there was a report the problem goes away if an option like ''without-freetype' was added to gd's configure script. You will need to search the recent posts to find the exact details - I don't h

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Dima Pasechnik wrote: I suppose you can edit install-spkg in unpacked gd spkg, i.e. SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard/gd-2.0.35.p4.spkg ans specify --with-libiconv-prefix=... in the ./configure call. That looks very sensible to me. I created a ticket for it, but don't have time to do it now. http://tr

[sage-devel] Re: Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

as I wrote, you need to fix the spkg in order to finish the build (at least this is the most straightforward way) You can also explicitly modify LDFLAGS in spkg-install to pass what needs to be passed to configure, IMHO... On Mar 20, 9:40 pm, Florent Hivert wrote: >        Hi there, > > Sorry for

[sage-devel] Re: Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Dr. David Kirkby wrote: I'm too busy to search for it, but there was a report the problem goes away if an option like ''without-freetype' was added to gd's configure script. You will need to search the recent posts to find the exact details - I don't have time to do it f

Re: [sage-devel] Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Dr. David Kirkby wrote: I'm too busy to search for it, but there was a report the problem goes away if an option like ''without-freetype' was added to gd's configure script. You will need to search the recent posts to find the exact details - I don't have time to do it for you just now - sorry

[sage-devel] Re: Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

I suppose you can edit install-spkg in unpacked gd spkg, i.e. SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard/gd-2.0.35.p4.spkg ans specify --with-libiconv-prefix=... in the ./configure call. then do sage -spkg gd-2.0.35.p4 sage -f gd-2.0.35.p4.spkg and then rebuild sage. Not sure it will help, but perhaps... Actually,

Re: [sage-devel] Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Florent Hivert wrote: Hi there, I'm in trouble building sage 4.3.4... Here is the problem: During the build of gd I get: [...] /bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -L/usr/local/sage/sage-4.3.4/local/lib -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/sage/sage-4.3.4/local/lib -L/usr/local/s

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

Dima Pasechnik wrote: well, actually, it might remove a confusion over this option is the upgrade path is not posted as the 1st thing in every release announcement. Yes, perhaps it should be added at the bottom, with a note such as "Although very risky, you might try to upgrade a previous ver

Re: [sage-devel] Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Hi there, Sorry for replying to myself: > But there is no problem if I add it: > > /usr/local/sage/sage-4.3.4/spkg/build/gd-2.0.35.p4\nsage subshell$ gcc -g -O2 > -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/sage/sage-4.3.4/local/lib -o .libs/annotate > annotate.o -L/usr/local/sage/sage-4.3.4/loc

[sage-devel] Sage-4.3.4 fails to build on openSuSE 11.1 x86_64.

Hi there, I'm in trouble building sage 4.3.4... Here is the problem: During the build of gd I get: [...] /bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -L/usr/local/sage/sage-4.3.4/local/lib -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/sage/sage-4.3.4/local/lib -L/usr/local/sage/sage-4.3.4/local/lib

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

well, actually, it might remove a confusion over this option is the upgrade path is not posted as the 1st thing in every release announcement. On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, William Stein wrote: > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby > > > > > > wrote: > > Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > >> upgradi

Re: [sage-devel] Guidelines for updating standard packages

Minh Nguyen wrote: Hi David, On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Does anyone have any comments on those, or additions? The guidelines you listed above sound reasonable to me. Could you please open a ticket and add those guidelines? I will do, though it would be go

[sage-devel] Re: hmm.[tab] = hidden markov models

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:38 PM, William Stein wrote: > Hi, > > I'm curious if anybody reading this uses the Hidden Markov Models > (HMM) code in Sage for anything.  If so, send me an email, since I'm > working on 100% replacing it by some brand new better quality code. OK, this is now done and r

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

William Stein wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Dima Pasechnik wrote: upgrading from alpha1 to rc0 fails on t2. It fails at updating cddlib, complaining about two copies of libgmp.so, one in /usr/local/lib, and another in SAGE_LOCAL/lib. -

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

I relieved to know that one does not have to check that an updated spkg does not break sage - upgrade_will_surely_screw_up_your_sage_install_unless_you_are_william option... On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, William Stein wrote: > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby > > > > > > wrote: > > Dima

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> upgrading from alpha1 to rc0 fails on t2. >> It fails at updating cddlib, complaining about two copies of >> libgmp.so, one in /usr/local/lib, and >> another in SAGE_LOCAL/lib. >> >> -- >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

Dima Pasechnik wrote: upgrading from alpha1 to rc0 fails on t2. It fails at updating cddlib, complaining about two copies of libgmp.so, one in /usr/local/lib, and another in SAGE_LOCAL/lib. -- /scratch/dima/sage-4.3.4.alpha1$ ./sage -upgrade http://sage.math.washington.ed

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Guidelines for updating standard packages

John H Palmieri wrote: On Mar 19, 6:21 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote: Hi David, On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Does anyone have any comments on those, or additions? The guidelines you listed above sound reasonable to me. I agree, except for part of #4: "The author m

Re: [sage-devel] no GSoC for Sage

Hi Burcin, On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Burcin Erocal wrote: > - replace the "GSoC 2010" link on the front page of the web site with > a "Help Wanted" or "Get Involved!" link. The "development" section of > the site (which should also be revised) is not enough for this. The phrase "Get

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC)

Robert Bradshaw wrote: On Mar 19, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Jaap Spies wrote: Dr. David Kirkby wrote: However, there is still a significant number of .spkg updates each release. Yes. I would like a policy that spkgs are only updated on x.y releases, but I'm in the minority with you in trying to get

[sage-devel] no GSoC for Sage

Hi, Those interested must have found out already that our application as a GSoC mentoring application was not accepted. I think we did a good job preparing an application, especially thanks to Dan Drake, Peter Jeremy, Jason Grout, Harald Schilly, David Kirkby and Minh Nguyen (please correct me if

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC) --- but does not upgrade?

upgrading from alpha1 to rc0 fails on t2. It fails at updating cddlib, complaining about two copies of libgmp.so, one in /usr/local/lib, and another in SAGE_LOCAL/lib. -- /scratch/dima/sage-4.3.4.alpha1$ ./sage -upgrade http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.3.

Re: [sage-devel] atan2 throws "divide by zero"

Hi Greg, On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:41:58 -0700 (PDT) G B wrote: > I raised this in sage-support, and am now reasonably convinced this is > a bug. Guidelines say the next step is to raise it here. The full > thread is at: > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/02f3446e6

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Guidelines for updating standard packages

On Mar 19, 2010, at 6:33 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: On Mar 19, 6:21 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote: Hi David, On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Does anyone have any comments on those, or additions? The guidelines you listed above sound reasonable to me. I agree, excep

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.3.4.rc0 builds ok on Solaris 10 (SPARC)

On Mar 19, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Jaap Spies wrote: Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Robert Bradshaw wrote: [snipped] For spkgs, changes to shell scripts, etc. a it is much more important to test on a wide variety of platforms. Fortunately, most contributions are plain vanilla Python/Cython. Thanks for

Re: [sage-devel] help with I and NumberFieldElement_quadratic

On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:23 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: Hi, I am having problems understanding how "I" (complex unit) in Sage: sage: type(I) somehow becomes a NumberFieldElement_quadratic and that fails to convert to the sympy's I: ond...@raven:~/repos/sympy(pu)$ MPMATH_NOSAGE=yes sage -python bi