Re: [sage-devel] OSX tester wanted

2010-07-05 Thread Justin C. Walker
On Jul 5, 2010, at 16:28 , Justin C. Walker wrote: On Jul 5, 2010, at 03:14 , François Bissey wrote: In making a patch for ticket #9097 I simplified the logic of the building sage_clib on OSX and 64 bit platforms. It works for Dave on solaris 64 bits. But it would be nice if we didn't have any

Re: [sage-devel] OSX tester wanted

2010-07-05 Thread Justin C. Walker
On Jul 5, 2010, at 03:14 , François Bissey wrote: In making a patch for ticket #9097 I simplified the logic of the building sage_clib on OSX and 64 bit platforms. It works for Dave on solaris 64 bits. But it would be nice if we didn't have any surprise from the OSX side. So if a friendly OSX te

Re: [sage-devel] Re: OSX tester wanted

2010-07-05 Thread Dr. David Kirkby
On 07/ 5/10 09:22 PM, Georg S. Weber wrote: On 5 Jul., 18:03, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote: On 07/ 5/10 11:14 AM, Fran ois Bissey wrote: Hi, In making a patch for ticket #9097 I simplified the logic of the building sage_clib on OSX and 64 bit platforms. It works for Dave on solaris 64 bits.

[sage-devel] Re: OSX tester wanted

2010-07-05 Thread Georg S. Weber
On 5 Jul., 18:03, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote: > On 07/ 5/10 11:14 AM, Fran ois Bissey wrote: > > > Hi, > > > In making a patch for ticket #9097 I simplified the > > logic of the building sage_clib on OSX and 64 bit platforms. > > It works for Dave on solaris 64 bits. But it would be nice > > if we

[sage-devel] Re: LibSingular exponentiation

2010-07-05 Thread Simon King
Dear Michael, On Jul 5, 3:27 pm, Michael Brickenstein wrote: > Regarding exponentiation, there is a function > pPower(poly p, int i); > it uses the current ring I guess that the function singular_polynomial_pow that is being used in __pow__ uses pPower. Anyway, my confusion came from the fact t

Re: [sage-devel] OSX tester wanted

2010-07-05 Thread Dr. David Kirkby
On 07/ 5/10 11:14 AM, François Bissey wrote: Hi, In making a patch for ticket #9097 I simplified the logic of the building sage_clib on OSX and 64 bit platforms. It works for Dave on solaris 64 bits. But it would be nice if we didn't have any surprise from the OSX side. So if a friendly OSX test

[sage-devel] Re: LibSingular exponentiation

2010-07-05 Thread Michael Brickenstein
Hi! Hmm, costs depend, can be quite extrem in corner cases: - many terms - many variables - few bits per variables - low degree maximal exponent size depends on the ring. I do not know at the moment how to find out. Regarding exponentiation, there is a function pPower(poly p, int i); it uses the

[sage-devel] Re: LibSingular exponentiation

2010-07-05 Thread Simon King
Hi Yann On Jul 5, 1:17 pm, YannLC wrote: > You might try to look at __pow__ (2 underscores) I am surprised that __pow__ exists -- after I found _pow_, I actually didn't look for __pow__. Isn't __pow__ supposed to be implemented by _pow_? Ah! It seems that the _pow_ method is inherited from the

[sage-devel] Ticket #8972 (needs_review defect: fixed) ??

2010-07-05 Thread Simon King
Hi! I just found that one of the tickets I was involved in is at the same time "needing review" and "fixed" (#8972, about inversion and fraction fields of power series rings). Apparently the reason is that it was merged in some alpha version (resolved as fixed), but then doctest errors in other c

[sage-devel] Re: LibSingular exponentiation

2010-07-05 Thread YannLC
You might try to look at __pow__ (2 underscores) On Jul 5, 1:39 pm, Simon King wrote: > On Jul 5, 12:01 pm, Simon King wrote: > > > ... > > Shouldn't one at least avoid the overhead in calling a Python function > > whose only purpose is to call a Cython function? By renaming > > generic_power_c

[sage-devel] Re: LibSingular exponentiation

2010-07-05 Thread Simon King
On Jul 5, 12:01 pm, Simon King wrote: > ... > Shouldn't one at least avoid the overhead in calling a Python function > whose only purpose is to call a Cython function? By renaming > generic_power_c to generic_power and making it cpdef, for example? I guess this wouldn't help, as the function is n

[sage-devel] LibSingular exponentiation

2010-07-05 Thread Simon King
Hi! A while ago, I reported ticket #7795: There is a segmentation fault if the exponent of a libsingular-polynomial is too big. Of course, it would be nicer to have an ArithmeticError (or RuntimeError? Which suits better?) rather than a crash. Two questions: 1. What is the maximal exponent of a

[sage-devel] OSX tester wanted

2010-07-05 Thread François Bissey
Hi, In making a patch for ticket #9097 I simplified the logic of the building sage_clib on OSX and 64 bit platforms. It works for Dave on solaris 64 bits. But it would be nice if we didn't have any surprise from the OSX side. So if a friendly OSX tester could try the patch at http://trac.sagemath.

Re: [sage-devel] Why I love the open-ness of Sage

2010-07-05 Thread William Stein
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Georg S. Weber wrote: > Yeah, I do favor working with Sage over, say, working with Magma, > because if I run into a bug like this (nice one, eh'?): > {{{ > sage: V = span([[1/7,0,0] ,[0,1,0]], ZZ); V > Free module of degree 3 and rank 2 over Integer Ring > Echelon

Re: [sage-devel] How to create a new URL

2010-07-05 Thread Tim Joseph Dumol
Hi, On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Sameer Regmi wrote: > Hi, > > When we type mysagenb.org/register it takes to registration page, or > when we type mysagenb/pub it takes to published worksheets. In the > same way I need to create a page (dynamic) which can be reached by > typing mysagenb/new_pa