On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 at 01:58PM -0400, Jason Bandlow wrote:
> > At the moment there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way.
> > If you have an opinion on this, please vote! Let x be an explicit
> > numerical value such that x is not a non-negative integer (e.g. x=2/3,
> > x=1.5, or x=i).
On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, Tom Coates wrote:
>
>
> On 16 June, 07:48, rjf wrote:
>
>> By your reasoning, and for other domains we would have the following
>> behavior:
>>
>> 1-2 --> error. 1 and 2 are both positive integers. In order to
>> provide the answer -1, one must
>> expand the domai
On Jun 16, 2:44 am, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> A few questions / requests for a vote:
> - do we want this feature ?
With regard to linking between Sage docs (your original #1) - Monday
night I wanted to link from a new section for the tutorial back to the
functions/methods I was discussing. And on
On 16 June 2010 18:24, Tom Coates wrote:
> At the moment there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way.
> If you have an opinion on this, please vote! Let x be an explicit
> numerical value such that x is not a non-negative integer (e.g. x=2/3,
> x=1.5, or x=i). The options are:
>
> A)
Hello,
is there any ongoing progress on implementing a multigraded Hilbert
series? I needed a multigraded Hilbert series for a quotient of a
polynomial ring and found
- Ticket #6416 and
- thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/d5ad19efd4d0d847/bbc3a2345c2f5d2b?lnk=
Hi Mike,
I'm still trying to improve my sphinx expertise :-)
> > I'd like to have some crossref back and forth from sage source __doc__ to
> > some
> > rst file under doc/en/... and as well to some html files provided by some
> > spkg. This raise two different but related questions:
> >
>
On 2010-Jun-16 10:24:35 -0700, Tom Coates wrote:
>That said, if the consensus is that factorial(x) should be
>analytically continued, to allow x to be an explicit non-integral
>number (as is the case in Maple and Mathematica), then I am happy with
>this. But then we should change the documentatio
> At the moment there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way.
> If you have an opinion on this, please vote! Let x be an explicit
> numerical value such that x is not a non-negative integer (e.g. x=2/3,
> x=1.5, or x=i). The options are:
>
> A) factorial(x) should raise an error;
>
>
I know, I know, I was just trying to have it easy :-D
I sent the following email to Minh about the modifications it may mean :
Hello Minh !!!
Just a question about this "OptionalPackageNotInstalledError"
exception mentionned about the bug you found in is_hamiltonian... I
> At the moment there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way.
> If you have an opinion on this, please vote! Let x be an explicit
> numerical value such that x is not a non-negative integer (e.g. x=2/3,
> x=1.5, or x=i). The options are:
>
> A) factorial(x) should raise an error;
>
> B
On 16 June, 07:48, rjf wrote:
> By your reasoning, and for other domains we would have the following
> behavior:
>
> 1-2 --> error. 1 and 2 are both positive integers. In order to
> provide the answer -1, one must
> expand the domain to include negative integers.
>
> 1 / 2 --> error..
It seems to go against the semantics of the verb "to implement".
"NotImplemented" would make the user think that he's out of luck, and
has to
write his own code...
Dima
On Jun 16, 5:17 pm, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Could I escape through saying that the functionality is not
> implemented "in the ru
Yes.
On Jun 13, 1:22 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> A few months ago, #8276 made the MatrixSpace identity_matrix and
> zero_matrix methods return immutable matrices, following a discussion on
> sage-devel. A consequence of this (unintended, I hope!) was that the
> top-level identity_matrix and zero_ma
Could I escape through saying that the functionality is not
implemented "in the running version of Sage" ? :-p
Nathann
On 16 June 2010 16:19, daveloeffler wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 16, 1:31 pm, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
>> What would you think of raising a NotImplementedError when there is no
>> solver
On Jun 15, 9:28 pm, Tom Coates wrote:
>
...
>
> I have not thought seriously about the issues involved, so my opinion
> should be regarded as tentative. But right now my view is that the
> symbolic expressions factorial(x) and gamma(x+1) should not be
> identified, and that factorial(x) should
On Jun 16, 1:31 pm, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> What would you think of raising a NotImplementedError when there is no
> solver installed instead ?
NotImplementedError is misleading: the functionality is implemented,
it just isn't installed :-)
The most "pythonic" solution is probably to add a new
Then let it be ! :-)
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9249
Nathann
--
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 this group at http://groups.google
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 at 05:49AM -0700, Jonathan wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I'll take a look at it. I'm going to guess
> that the problem relates to the IcedTea package. Jmol only supports
> the official Sun Java. The fact that you could get Jmol to run using
> IcedTea is a major improveme
Hi Nathann,
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> What would you think of raising a NotImplementedError when there is no
> solver installed instead ?
That sounds good.
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To u
H... It's actually a bit worse than I expected... The function
MixedIntegerLinearProgram.solve returns a ValueError when there is no
solver installed, and the traveling_salesman_problem method also
returns a ValueError when there is no hamiltonian cycle, so the
is_hamiltonian function has no wa
Hi Nathann,
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Have you created a patch for this already ?
Not yet. I have been waiting for confirmation from an expert :-)
> If not, I'll do it
> immediately ! :-)
Sure, thank you.
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
--
To post to this grou
Sorr
it is just another "Except MIPSolverException" I forgot !!! Just
adding this will solve the bug, as the lack of any solver returns the
exception "No solver installed"
Have you created a patch for this already ? If not, I'll do it
immediately ! :-)
Nathann
On Jun 16, 1:53 p
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:32 PM, David Joyner wrote:
>> Do you have GLPK, CBC, or CPLEX installed?
>
> When I have GLPK or CBC installed, hamiltonian_cycle() works fine. The
> bug is that when neither of them, nor even CPLEX, is
Hi David,
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:32 PM, David Joyner wrote:
> Do you have GLPK, CBC, or CPLEX installed?
When I have GLPK or CBC installed, hamiltonian_cycle() works fine. The
bug is that when neither of them, nor even CPLEX, is installed, the
error message is misleading.
--
Regards
Minh Va
Do you have GLPK, CBC, or CPLEX installed?
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here's a little bug in the method hamiltonian_cycle() of
> graphs/generic_graph.py, indeed also in is_hamiltonian() and
> traveling_salesman_problem(). Create the Chvátal graph or any g
Hi folks,
Here's a little bug in the method hamiltonian_cycle() of
graphs/generic_graph.py, indeed also in is_hamiltonian() and
traveling_salesman_problem(). Create the Chvátal graph or any graph
that is known to be Hamiltonian and then call the method
hamiltonian_cycle() on that graph:
sage: ver
On 16 June 2010 10:18, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:18 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>> You would need to be very sure that each of the machines had the same
>> version of Sage (+optional packages) installed, otherwise it would get
>> very confusing for the user who restarted their
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:18 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> You would need to be very sure that each of the machines had the same
> version of Sage (+optional packages) installed, otherwise it would get
> very confusing for the user who restarted their worksheet.
>
> I stopped using server_pool on our
You would need to be very sure that each of the machines had the same
version of Sage (+optional packages) installed, otherwise it would get
very confusing for the user who restarted their worksheet.
I stopped using server_pool on our machine, since everything worked
*except* magma for some reason
29 matches
Mail list logo
