On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Bruce Cohen wrote:
I have a new machine with Ubuntu 9.10 (32 bit). My first build of
Sage (4.3.5) did not work. Here is a 100 line (maybe too many lines,
maybe too little) of install.log.
Thanks for your help.
-Bruce
How loaded is your machine?
make[3]: ***
I have a new machine with Ubuntu 9.10 (32 bit). My first build of
Sage (4.3.5) did not work. Here is a 100 line (maybe too many lines,
maybe too little) of install.log.
Thanks for your help.
-Bruce
euler:~/src/sage-4.3.5> tail -100 install.log
make[7]: Entering directory `/home/bic/src/sage-
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:10 PM, David Joyner wrote:
> The createspace server has accepted everything and I received the
> proof in the mail a few hours ago. I didn't like a few things, so will
> try to tweek the latex source a bit (the bibliography is on p101
> instead of p97, and there was an ov
The createspace server has accepted everything and I received the
proof in the mail a few hours ago. I didn't like a few things, so will
try to tweek the latex source a bit (the bibliography is on p101
instead of p97, and there was an overfull box on p17 ...)
to fix some minor problems. Hopefully t
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 at 05:18PM -0700, Nathan Dunfield wrote:
> > Here is a more concise, but essentially equivalent, code snippet which
> > exhibits the problem. Just attach and run "prob()" Again, it takes
> > 10-12 minutes to crash on my MacPro3,1 with 2 Quad-Core Xeon
> > Processors @ 2.8 Ghz
> Here is a more concise, but essentially equivalent, code snippet which
> exhibits the problem. Just attach and run "prob()" Again, it takes
> 10-12 minutes to crash on my MacPro3,1 with 2 Quad-Core Xeon
> Processors @ 2.8 Ghz, running 10.5.8, with Sage 4.3.2 self-compiled
> with i686-apple-dar
Here is a more concise, but essentially equivalent, code snippet which
exhibits the problem. Just attach and run "prob()" Again, it takes
10-12 minutes to crash on my MacPro3,1 with 2 Quad-Core Xeon
Processors @ 2.8 Ghz, running 10.5.8, with Sage 4.3.2 self-compiled
with i686-apple-darwin9-gcc-4
Speaking of that, why not institute a "program committee"
where people volunteer to do reviews before your Sage days?
I do a lot of program committee work, which is painful but
is a professional "giving back to the community" task. It
is always done against a deadline which is a great motivation.
Hi John,
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:26 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> Thanks for adding my student Charlie. Is there a link to this from
> www.sagenb.org?
I have added a link to that list. You can find the link at
http://www.sagemath.org/links.html
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
--
To post to this g
On Apr 14, 2:57 pm, William Stein wrote:
> You should post exact code so that we can replicate your problem.
I've boiled down the problem into the example below. Just attach and
then run "prob()".
One thing to note is that's just doing the exact same thing again and
again, but eventually it up
On 04/14/2010 03:04 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM, John Cremona wrote:
I have been strongly encouraging new students starting out with Sage
to make small (initially) patches on their very own ticket, so that
they can feel good when these get reviewed positively and
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM, John Cremona wrote:
> I have been strongly encouraging new students starting out with Sage
> to make small (initially) patches on their very own ticket, so that
> they can feel good when these get reviewed positively and then merged.
> But those same people migh
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Nathan Dunfield wrote:
> I'm having the following problem with basic symbolics in Sage 4.3.2.
> I create some variables with "var", combine them into rational
> functions, then take their numerator and denominator and coerce them
> into a PolynomialRing. This wo
I have been strongly encouraging new students starting out with Sage
to make small (initially) patches on their very own ticket, so that
they can feel good when these get reviewed positively and then merged.
But those same people might take quite a while longer before they
feel confident about re
Thanks for adding my student Charlie. Is there a link to this from
www.sagenb.org?
John
On 14 April 2010 01:15, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
>
>
>
>> Two more contributors:
>
> Thank you for this, Alex. The list has been updated with yo
I'm having the following problem with basic symbolics in Sage 4.3.2.
I create some variables with "var", combine them into rational
functions, then take their numerator and denominator and coerce them
into a PolynomialRing. This works fine most of the time, but very
occasionally (every few 1
> > I think something as simple as sorting the "tickets needing review" by
> > author karma would be useful without being overly complicated or formal. The
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking of. If somebody referees a
> lot of patches, then they automatically get singled out as "somebod
On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Robert Miller wrote:
That could backfire - people may decide to review tickets they
might not
otherwise feel confident about reviewing.
If I don't feel like reviewing a ticket with high "karma" but I do
care about one with low karma, then I would review zero tic
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Harald Schilly wrote:
>
>> On Apr 14, 6:23 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That could backfire - people may decide to review tickets they might not
>>> otherwise feel confident about reviewing.
>
> T
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Harald Schilly wrote:
On Apr 14, 6:23 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
That could backfire - people may decide to review tickets they
might not
otherwise feel confident about reviewing.
That's a good point. Fortunately, all the people I've met in the Sage
commu
>> That could backfire - people may decide to review tickets they might not
>> otherwise feel confident about reviewing.
If I don't feel like reviewing a ticket with high "karma" but I do
care about one with low karma, then I would review zero tickets
instead of one, and be irritated that I could
On Apr 14, 6:23 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> That could backfire - people may decide to review tickets they might not
> otherwise feel confident about reviewing.
You are right, that could be a problem and it's also a "closed game".
If there are no new tickets with unreviewed code, a new develo
William Stein wrote:
I've
also been thinking of instituting a "karma system", where you get
Karma for doing reviews. Moreover, people who submit a lot of code
for inclusion and don't do reviews... will have the lowest priority
for getting their code reviewed.
-- William
That could backfire
Thanks guys. I eventually did the following combination of my first
attempt and your suggestions.
Upload the image file as people suggested using the data menu.
And then I inserted the image in a text entry box, using the "Insert/
edit image" button, and using just the file name for the URL.
The
24 matches
Mail list logo
