Any chance you could ask the author to put up the source files for his
pdf, so that we can run them through translation software, William?
Joal Heagney
On Jul 9, 9:47 pm, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Paul Zimmermann orchestrated the writing of a new -- and amazingly
> organized and systematic
(Yes, I realize I'm responding to an 8-month-old email.)
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> It would be worth trying this out in Maxima. If Maxima can do it, we
> can try to expose more stuff; if not, we'll have to return to other
> things if people really need this. A while
Hi Martin,
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
>> In short, if there is any part of the code you or Minh Nguyen think
>> could be of general interest for the Sage community, go!
>> License & granularity of what you want to reuse shouldn't become a barrier.
>
> So it seems thi
On Jul 7, 2:51 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Volker!
>
> On 7 Jul., 20:30, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> > sage: FF = FiniteField(7)
> > sage: P. = PolynomialRing(FiniteField(7))
> > sage: x+1
>
> Apparently the problem is in the _element_constructor_:
>
> sage: P(1)
> ...
> /home/king/SAGE/sage-4.4.2/loc
On 07/08/2010 11:28 PM, 3DRaven wrote:
> I have run the "sage" and click notebook()
> Start firefox: http://localhost:8000
> I had to wait a few minutes.
> Soot is very slow.
> The calculation was unable to run.
> Timeouts connection with the server all the time.
Could you please be more precise a
On 07/10/10 07:41 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 7/10/10 6:04 AM, William Stein wrote:
Eventually, Sage will switch to Python 3.x.
Things are accelerating. On the numpy/scipy list from today:
We could accelerate them even more, by using the -3 flag, and identifying what
bits of the Sage librar
On 07/10/10 07:41 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 7/10/10 6:04 AM, William Stein wrote:
Eventually, Sage will switch to Python 3.x.
Things are accelerating. On the numpy/scipy list from today:
We could accelerate them even more, by using the -3 flag, and identifying what
bits of the Sage librar
On 7/10/10 6:04 AM, William Stein wrote:
Eventually, Sage will switch to Python 3.x.
Things are accelerating. On the numpy/scipy list from today:
"As many of you probably already know, Numpy works fully on Python 3 and
Python 2, with a *single code base*, since March. This work is scheduled
On 7/10/10 10:18 AM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Has *anybody* had any trouble with pages getting accidentally deleted
from http://wiki.sagemath.org during the last 3-4 days? We made a
change that might
have fixed the problem.
I'm curious what you think was the problem and what change you made
On 07/10/10 03:52 PM, John Cremona wrote:
I think it would be extremely difficult to list all doctests which
(directly or indirectly) use Singular.
I only used that as an example. R, Maxima etc could all do with this sort of
thing. Something like Python, it would obviously not be practical.
Hi,
Has *anybody* had any trouble with pages getting accidentally deleted
from http://wiki.sagemath.org during the last 3-4 days? We made a
change that might
have fixed the problem.
William
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:19 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> I did lose a page but William showed me how to
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 5:18 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> Nice, though usually I already know about and don't have time to/don't
> feel competent to review them ;)
Hi,
I've extended the nagbot again in two ways:
(1) It now also sounds out some requests for tickets that "need work".
(2) It sends at m
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> 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
I think it would be extremely difficult to list all doctests which
(directly or indirectly) use Singular. And, even if we could, then
every new doctest on every patch would have to be checked (who by?)
and if it used Singular then the Singular spkg would need updating
when that patch was applied!
Currently, if someone updates a package (e.g. Singular) and I want to review
that package, I can
* Test if the new Singular builds on Solaris, OS X and Linux. If so consider
the new package OK.
* Run all the doctests ($ make ptestlong) on all 3 platforms and be sure it
does not break anythin
On 07/10/10 02:32 PM, Sergey Bochkanov wrote:
Hello, David!
Thanks for your reply, it was very useful.
You wrote 10 июля 2010 г., 1:47:31:
1) It does not work on Solaris 10 on SPARC - see below. I suspect
there are some GNU-specific linker options, which will fail if the
Sun linker is us
Hi there,
I was contacted by Philippe Teuwen about whether we'd like to include
PyCryptoPlus in Sage:
> PyCryptoPlus is a cryptographic module similar to PyCrypto, with which
> it shares the API. But PyCryptoPlus is written 100% in Python, so its
> primary interest is educational and scientific;
Hello, David!
Thanks for your reply, it was very useful.
You wrote 10 июля 2010 г., 1:47:31:
> 1) It does not work on Solaris 10 on SPARC - see below. I suspect
> there are some GNU-specific linker options, which will fail if the
> Sun linker is used on Solaris 10.
Looks like it is actuall
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Johannes wrote:
>
> Am 10.07.2010 15:04, schrieb William Stein
> [...]
>> This is standard Python behaviour. A list comprehension doesn't have
>>> its own scope, so the "p" used in the list comprehension overwrites
>>> the other "p" previously declared in the same
Am 10.07.2010 15:04, schrieb William Stein
[...]
> This is standard Python behaviour. A list comprehension doesn't have
>> its own scope, so the "p" used in the list comprehension overwrites
>> the other "p" previously declared in the same scope. I agree that this
>> can be annoying, but it's a fa
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:00 PM, daveloeffler wrote:
>
>
> On 10 July, 13:05, Johannes wrote:
>> Hi list,
>> i just tried the following pice of code and returned an unexcepted, but
>> explainable behavior:
>>
>> sage: p = los[0][1]
>> A lattice polytope: 3-dimensional, 4 vertices.
>> sage: list(s
On 10 July, 13:05, Johannes wrote:
> Hi list,
> i just tried the following pice of code and returned an unexcepted, but
> explainable behavior:
>
> sage: p = los[0][1]
> A lattice polytope: 3-dimensional, 4 vertices.
> sage: list(set([ p for p in reduce (lambda x,y : x + y,[ f.points()
> for f
Hi list,
i just tried the following pice of code and returned an unexcepted, but
explainable behavior:
sage: p = los[0][1]
A lattice polytope: 3-dimensional, 4 vertices.
sage: list(set([ p for p in reduce (lambda x,y : x + y,[ f.points()
for f in p.facets() ])]))
[0, ... some list of points ]
sa
Here it is :
http://sage.pastebin.com/X5UCjQub
I have no clue what it means but I would be pleased to see how you
interpret it ;-)
Le 09/07/2010 19:59, Mike Hansen a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Pablo Winant wrote:
According to cpuinfo I have an Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo C
24 matches
Mail list logo
