I've discovered a bit more about this issue. The Singular spkgs in 4.3.3
and 4.3.4 are exactly the same, so it can't be that. There were no
changes to free_module.py between 4.3.3 and 4.3.4.
I used Mercurial's bisect command to track down the offending patch. I
tried several times, and it always s
On Apr 1, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I believe this is very relevant to the discussion that's taking
place on sage-devel.
Thank you Robert. Forwarding that was very useful.
Begin forwarded message:
From: William Stein
Date: March 21, 2010 11:09:31 AM
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I believe this is very relevant to the discussion that's taking place on
sage-devel.
Thank you Robert. Forwarding that was very useful.
Begin forwarded message:
From: William Stein
Date: March 21, 2010 11:09:31 AM PDT
To: sage-release
Subject: [sage-release] Sage re
Hi
Id like to write a package that can do "pure"/"abstract" matrix
expressions such as in the following examples
To keep things simple, in the examples below, let
A, B, C... be matrices; k be a scalar
"*" be matrix or scalar multiplication, "^-1" and "^T" and "^n" be
matrix inverse, transpose and
I believe this is very relevant to the discussion that's taking place
on sage-devel.
Begin forwarded message:
From: William Stein
Date: March 21, 2010 11:09:31 AM PDT
To: sage-release
Subject: [sage-release] Sage releases
Reply-To: sage-rele...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
The last release (sage-
On Apr 1, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2010-Apr-01 08:37:12 +0100, David Kirkby
wrote:
What do others feel about these two cenaros
1) Have official support for a large number of Linux distributions,
even though there are not the resources to test on them.
2) Have a smaller numbe
On 2010-Apr-01 08:37:12 +0100, David Kirkby wrote:
>What do others feel about these two cenaros
>
>1) Have official support for a large number of Linux distributions,
>even though there are not the resources to test on them.
>
>2) Have a smaller number of officially supported distributions on
>whi
John Cremona wrote:
On 1 April 2010 17:21, Jaap Spies wrote:
Tom Boothby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Francesco Biscani
wrote:
Erm, April 1st?
An Australian, playing a prank? I shouldn't think they'd know how.
They're such a serious bunch. I've hardly even seen Bill crack a
On Apr 1, 10:21 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
> You clearly didn't met him at dinner with a glass of good Australian wine.
"Alt Smakey 1968" has been compared favourably to a Welsh
claret, whilst the Australian wino society thouroughly
recommend a 1970 "Cote du Rod Laver", which, believe me, has a
kick
Francesco Biscani wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding whether this thread is flooding
with sarcasm or is completely devoid of it.
;)
Francesco.
I believe this is an April fools joke, which I fell for.
The link at the bottom of the message
http://tinyurl.com/y9dky9z
points to a sit
Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi There,
It sounds like David's definition is that every release of Sage is tested
on Suse before release by at least compiling it and running all doctests
without errors (David, correct me if I'm misinterpreting your views!).
How does your definition differ, if
On 04/01/2010 10:56 AM, Florent Hivert wrote:
I there ! I don't know why among all the other distributions openSuSE is
driving so much attention
I just picked something at random. No offense or other interpretation
intended.
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-d
I'm having a hard time understanding whether this thread is flooding
with sarcasm or is completely devoid of it.
;)
Francesco.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Tom Boothby wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Francesco Biscani
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Erm, April 1st?
>>
>>
On 1 April 2010 17:21, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Tom Boothby wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Francesco Biscani
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Erm, April 1st?
>>
>> An Australian, playing a prank? I shouldn't think they'd know how.
>> They're such a serious bunch. I've hardly even seen Bill crack a
>>
Tom Boothby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Francesco Biscani wrote:
Erm, April 1st?
An Australian, playing a prank? I shouldn't think they'd know how.
They're such a serious bunch. I've hardly even seen Bill crack a
smile, let alone laugh!
You clearly didn't met him at dinner wit
Hi There,
>> It sounds like David's definition is that every release of Sage is tested
>> on Suse before release by at least compiling it and running all doctests
>> without errors (David, correct me if I'm misinterpreting your views!).
>> How does your definition differ, if it does?
>
>
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Francesco Biscani wrote:
> Erm, April 1st?
An Australian, playing a prank? I shouldn't think they'd know how.
They're such a serious bunch. I've hardly even seen Bill crack a
smile, let alone laugh!
Besides, if this was April 1st, I'd have read about it on Slash
Erm, April 1st?
Francesco.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
> MPIR Team wrote:
>>> We'd like the community to comment on this proposal. An announcement
>>> of our first v3+ version of MPIR will be forthcoming in a few days.
>
> David Kirkby wrote:
>> This stikes me as admitt
MPIR Team wrote:
>> We'd like the community to comment on this proposal. An announcement
>> of our first v3+ version of MPIR will be forthcoming in a few days.
David Kirkby wrote:
> This stikes me as admitting the GMP developers are correct in their
> claims, which you should not do if they are in
Jason Grout wrote:
On 04/01/2010 01:56 AM, William Stein wrote:
Sage didn't get to where it is now and won't get to where it needs to
go by such an attitude of not supporting platforms. If anything, we
need to solidly support far more platforms than we currently support.
William, what is yo
On 04/01/2010 01:56 AM, William Stein wrote:
Sage didn't get to where it is now and won't get to where it needs to
go by such an attitude of not supporting platforms. If anything, we
need to solidly support far more platforms than we currently support.
William, what is your definition of the
On 1 April 2010 08:39, MPIR Team wrote:
> Dear Developers,
>
> As many will be aware, we posted recently about the baseless and
> unsubstantiated allegations on the GMP website and promised to
> respond.
>
> We had anticipated that merely drawing attention to this material
> would lead to unpreced
Hi folks,
I have wrapped up a binary for t2.math. You can find it under the
release directory
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.3.5/
It is also available under my personal t2.math binary directory
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mvngu/t2.math-bin/
Before using either of
Dear Developers,
As many will be aware, we posted recently about the baseless and
unsubstantiated allegations on the GMP website and promised to
respond.
We had anticipated that merely drawing attention to this material
would lead to unprecedented public outrage and negativity towards
MPIR. Of co
What do others feel about these two cenaros
1) Have official support for a large number of Linux distributions,
even though there are not the resources to test on them.
2) Have a smaller number of officially supported distributions on
which it is practical to test Sage on before an official rele
On 1 April 2010 07:56, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:50 PM, David Kirkby
> wrote:
>> If developers do not have access to a platform, and/or they do not
>> have the time to test Sage on that platform, then remove offical
>> support for the platform. Given the following two po
On 31 March 2010 17:51, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:45 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> IMHO, if Sage is ever to become a viable alternative to Mathematica,
>> Maple, MATLAB and Macsyma, you are going to have to shift the emphasis
>> towards more thorough testing before ma
27 matches
Mail list logo
