On Jun 21, 11:20 am, William Stein wrote:
> This is an official call for a vote:
Just some input to throw into the mix. About 16 months ago, out of
curiosity, I signed up for the GLPK mailing list. It is fairly active
at about 100 messages/month, with about a quarter of those from the
official
On 6/21/10 11:20 AM, William Stein wrote:
[ ] yes, include glpk
[ ] no, don't because ___
Yes.
Thanks,
Jason
--
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.co
As FLINT 1.6 will be the last in the FLINT 1.x.y series, what will replace it?
Well, for over a year now, I've been working on a *complete rewrite*
of FLINT from scratch, now called flint2. Every single function has
been rewritten for _clarity_ and _speed_!! I've been able to make
significant gain
Thanks.
Looks like I rather want to use localhost. But I need it for about 20
users. What options do I have to give to "sage -notebook"?
Ralf
On 06/22/2010 01:58 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
>> What exactly has been done to prevent users of ht
On Jun 21, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
What exactly has been done to prevent users of http://sagenb.org to do
mischief on that server.
It's easy to set the session type to "sh" and find out about the
system.
All worksheet processes run as (several) limited-privilege users
withi
Andy Novocin and I have been working on flint 1.6 for about a year or
maybe a year and a half. This has involved numerous visits of him to
the UK and me to France. The big improvement... factoring polynomials
over Z with a new algorithm due to him and Mark van Hoeij.
This is a massive project to i
What exactly has been done to prevent users of http://sagenb.org to do
mischief on that server.
It's easy to set the session type to "sh" and find out about the system.
Ralf
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
On 06/21/10 10:27 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
If what you are saying is true, then that is appalling, David.
I believe it is true.
There's a list here of the packages which have spkg-check files.
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/1d6d6ad88557674d?hl=en#
as you can see,
Hi all,
this is the first of three posts, primary audience sage-devel, esp.
those attending Sage Days in Leiden.
As many of you know, I recently stepped down from the MPIR project.
The main reason was that I need to focus on FLINT until about 1 Oct
2010, then need to transition to 80% research, 2
On 06/21/10 11:03 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
If what you are saying is true, then that is appalling, David. Any
package which is not rigorously tested is completely and utterly
broken, as anyone who code, knows.
This is assuming that no one upstre
On 06/21/10 10:09 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
It seem strange we are only checking about 20% of the packages, even
if SAGE_CHECK is yes.
Yes, I guess you could say we trust the upstream testing too much.
But many of the upstream packages
On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
If what you are saying is true, then that is appalling, David. Any
package which is not rigorously tested is completely and utterly
broken, as anyone who code, knows.
This is assuming that no one upstream does any testing. I think the
focus shoul
Hi,
> > 1. It seems to me that kohel.py is broken and has not been used in the
> > past 5 years or so.
>
> Then I suppose we should remove it, unless David Kohel has objections.
Go ahead and remove it.
Cheers,
David
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To uns
If what you are saying is true, then that is appalling, David. Any
package which is not rigorously tested is completely and utterly
broken, as anyone who code, knows.
I think maybe future versions of flint should have no test suite and
no documentation. It would get done three times faster.
I vot
On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 06/20/10 11:19 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
Anyway, what of the following would be considered worth doing first,
given I don't have the time or inclination to do them all? All these
lack an spk-check file.
Python has been resolved.
John Pal
On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:20 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Monday, June 21, 2010, Robert Miller wrote:
Hello,
Almost a year ago there was a brief discussion about this topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/fed15c54478e8d5
GLPK is a GPLv3 program from the FSF for l
On 06/20/10 11:19 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
Anyway, what of the following would be considered worth doing first,
given I don't have the time or inclination to do them all? All these
lack an spk-check file.
Python has been resolved.
John Palmieri has reviewed the python package
http://boxen.mat
On 06/21/10 07:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Monday, June 21, 2010, Robert Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM, kcrisman wrote:
As long as there are no licensing issues, we *definitely* need
something for semi-serious LP (and I don't even use it!). If this is
the most obvious can
yes, sure!
By the way, GLPK has a CVXOPT interface, so this would also means that
this interface
needs to be somehow taken care of in a new release of CVXOPT package,
that I hopefully
will be able to deal with in July...
Dima
On Jun 21, 8:02 pm, Robert Miller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Almost a year
Il 21/06/2010 20:20, William Stein ha scritto:
This is an official call for a vote:
[ ] yes, include glpk
[ ] no, don't because ___
[X] yes, include glpk
Having a class to build easily MILP problems and discover that p.solve() raise
an excetion by default is somewh
A +1 from me, of course :-)
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.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www
On 06/21/10 07:30 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Jun 15, 2010, at 12:50 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 15 June 2010 02:41, Pablo De Napoli wrote:
I really think that spliting users into "developers" and "non
developers" is very much against the spirit of open source
I'm not sure if its against t
>
> This is an official call for a vote:
>
> [ X] yes, include glpk
I have not had any problems installing glpk, which I have done quite a
bit in testing the sandpiles package. I believe it builds on solaris
(definitely used to), and I know it does on a range of linux and mac
machines I have us
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Tested on cygwin?
Seems to work on Cygwin:
real9m30.674s
user2m52.117s
sys 5m37.069s
Successfully installed glpk-4.42.p0
Now cleaning up tmp files.
Making Sage/Python scripts relocatable...
Making script relocatable
Finished in
> Many of the awesome graph theory functions (such as for Hamiltonian
> graphs) depend on some LP program being installed, and I think it
> would be great if sage-standard could, e.g. solve the is_hamiltonian
> question.
I'm all in favour of having some LP (and MIP) solver in Sage by default. It
> Build time?
On my MacBook, under two minutes:
$ time sage -f glpk
...
real1m25.964s
user0m58.227s
sys 0m14.410s
> Tested on solaris?
>
> Tested on cygwin?
Sorry, but I have no idea...
--
Robert L. Miller
http://www.rlmiller.org/
--
To post to this group, send an email to sag
On Monday, June 21, 2010, Robert Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>> As long as there are no licensing issues, we *definitely* need
>> something for semi-serious LP (and I don't even use it!). If this is
>> the most obvious candidate for an official package, do i
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> As long as there are no licensing issues, we *definitely* need
> something for semi-serious LP (and I don't even use it!). If this is
> the most obvious candidate for an official package, do it. It's not
> more than another 100 MB to the tarbal
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:20 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Monday, June 21, 2010, Robert Miller wrote:
...
>
> This is an official call for a vote:
>
> [ ] yes, include glpk
I vote yes.
>
> [ ] no, don't because ___
>
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-de
On Monday, June 21, 2010, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2010, at 12:50 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>
> On 15 June 2010 02:41, Pablo De Napoli wrote:
>
> I really think that spliting users into "developers" and "non
> developers" is very much against the spirit of open source
>
>
> I'm not su
As long as there are no licensing issues, we *definitely* need
something for semi-serious LP (and I don't even use it!). If this is
the most obvious candidate for an official package, do it. It's not
more than another 100 MB to the tarball, is it? ;)
- kcrisman
On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, William Stei
On Jun 21, 2010, at 8:34 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>> Okay, I created a simple application (none of the copyright is set for
>> example) that does the following:
>>
>> 1. On launch it runs sage -notebook (which will open the default browser
>> etc. (unless there is a server running))
>
> This would b
On Jun 15, 2010, at 12:50 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 15 June 2010 02:41, Pablo De Napoli wrote:
I really think that spliting users into "developers" and "non
developers" is very much against the spirit of open source
I'm not sure if its against the spirit of open-source. Many of us use
pack
On Monday, June 21, 2010, Robert Miller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Almost a year ago there was a brief discussion about this topic:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/fed15c54478e8d5
>
> GLPK is a GPLv3 program from the FSF for linear programming:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/so
On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi Robert,
Copy on write *should* be rather easy to implement for matrices
at least.
This is both true and false:
Making the data-structure for having copy-on-write object is
fairly easy.
This
is just aving an extra level of indire
Okay, I'll get to work on that
Greg
On Jun 18, 10:39 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 6/17/10 10:23 AM, Greg Laun wrote:
>
> > Ourgeometrylab has a good deal of existing code for hyperbolic
> >geometry, and one of my goals this summer is to port it to Sage. I
> > spoke with Bill Goldman, who heads
On Jun 14, 2010, at 5:35 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 06/14/10 01:17 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 06/14/10 12:18 PM, Tim Joseph Dumol wrote:
As for Cython and gcc, the Sage notebook uses pure Python. I do
acknowledge that there's a minuscule chance that a Python update
could
change ru
On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:15 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:09 AM, daveloeffler
wrote:
On Jun 14, 11:25 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
So the doctests for that function are useless for testing that
function,
obviously.
I've wondered before if there's any way to make the test
Hello,
Almost a year ago there was a brief discussion about this topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/fed15c54478e8d5
GLPK is a GPLv3 program from the FSF for linear programming:
http://www.gnu.org/software/glpk/
Many of the awesome graph theory functions (such
On Jun 11, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Florent,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
I like this way of seeing. However, I was speaking about module or
functions
which are not tested nor deprecated and nowhere used into sage
(easy to check
using grep)
On Jun 21, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
Some people have just released a preliminary version of an html5
canvas matplotlib backend. What this means is cool interactive 2d
graphics for Sage. If anyone wants to look at it and see how it
works, the code is up here:
http://code.goog
Some people have just released a preliminary version of an html5 canvas
matplotlib backend. What this means is cool interactive 2d graphics for
Sage. If anyone wants to look at it and see how it works, the code is
up here:
http://code.google.com/p/mplh5canvas/
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to
> Okay, I created a simple application (none of the copyright is set for
> example) that does the following:
>
> 1. On launch it runs sage -notebook (which will open the default browser etc.
> (unless there is a server running))
This would be if one had it in (say) /Applications and double-cli
On 06/21/10 02:19 AM, François Bissey wrote:
make test
Thank you. That worked.
A package is up for review at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9295
if you would like to review it. This found 5 failures on my machine, so it was
well worth running, given Python is such a central part
Il 20/06/2010 23:52, Michele Comignano ha scritto:
The check_edge_label is where sage checks for equals labels in
http://hg.sagemath.org/sage-main/file/2cffe66bd642/sage/graphs/base/sparse_graph.pyx#l1
1318 <#l1318> if edge_labels[l_int] == l:
My opinion about that: I would remove rows 1408
Il 21/06/2010 09:14, Nathann Cohen ha scritto:
It is ! O_O
And I have to admit it would have required some time before I began to
suspect such a thing may have come from the graph backends... Good
work !!!
:)
I am adding Robert Miller in Cc as he will know better than anyone
else which part
Hello !!!
> Hope that's useful :)
It is ! O_O
And I have to admit it would have required some time before I began to
suspect such a thing may have come from the graph backends... Good
work !!!
I am adding Robert Miller in Cc as he will know better than anyone
else which parts of the library wou
47 matches
Mail list logo
