Hello !!!
Well, I'm sorry to say it like that, but as David mentionned this
document is really outdated now, which mean I have been thinking about
rewriting all of it. Actually, I already wrote an introduction to
graphs and LP using Sage, which should soon be available as a part of
the (french) Sa
On 08/26/10 01:24 AM, Mitesh Patel wrote:
On 08/25/2010 07:08 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
spkg/standard/deps shows:
$(INST)/$(CLIQUER): $(BASE) $(INST)/$(SCONS)
$(INSTALL) "$(SAGE_SPKG) $(CLIQUER) 2>&1" "tee -a
$(SAGE_LOGS)/$(CLIQUER).log"
but as far as I can tell, there is no such depen
On 08/25/2010 07:08 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
> spkg/standard/deps shows:
>
> $(INST)/$(CLIQUER): $(BASE) $(INST)/$(SCONS)
> $(INSTALL) "$(SAGE_SPKG) $(CLIQUER) 2>&1" "tee -a
> $(SAGE_LOGS)/$(CLIQUER).log"
>
>
> but as far as I can tell, there is no such dependency.
>
> Cliquer is a stand
spkg/standard/deps shows:
$(INST)/$(CLIQUER): $(BASE) $(INST)/$(SCONS)
$(INSTALL) "$(SAGE_SPKG) $(CLIQUER) 2>&1" "tee -a
$(SAGE_LOGS)/$(CLIQUER).log"
but as far as I can tell, there is no such dependency.
Cliquer is a standard bit of C, with a simple makefile.
Does anyone know why cliq
On 25 August 2010 17:23, Ryan Hinton wrote:
> First, I'm hoping someone (e.g. Nathann Cohen) will notice trac #9801
> which makes a few corrections to the linear programming part of the
> Sage Constructions document. I've fixed one problem, but I'm left
> with two more.
http://www.sagemath.org/d
On 08/25/10 09:49 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
It is 99% identical to the SYMPOW of mine that Mike tested before, but there
are a couple of minor changes. Assuming that patch above, builds and passes
tests on Cygwin, then #9166 can be closed a
I saw in
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/bf3a2494d547230a/3f890b6a4cb79fc3?hl=en&ie=UTF-#3f890b6a4cb79fc3
that T. Dumont was planning on wrapping a set of modern numerical
methods for ODEs for Sage. Has anyone worked on this?
--
To post to this group, send an email
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> It is 99% identical to the SYMPOW of mine that Mike tested before, but there
> are a couple of minor changes. Assuming that patch above, builds and passes
> tests on Cygwin, then #9166 can be closed as fixed, so one less things to
> worry
First, I'm hoping someone (e.g. Nathann Cohen) will notice trac #9801
which makes a few corrections to the linear programming part of the
Sage Constructions document. I've fixed one problem, but I'm left
with two more.
1. The maximal matching example code does not like my fix.
sage: g = graphs.
On 08/24/10 07:18 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Thanks Dima, that's at least a piece of feedback :-)
So, if no one seems to care, does this mean that this is implicitly
generally accepted as an optional package?
Vote:
[ ] Yes!
[ ] No!
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nico
> > > > Speaking of which: I never got feedback on my request to put this spkg
> > > > in optional/experimental:
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/ea1dca...
> >
> > > your wish to have it as standard most probably is not possible, due to
> > > licensing of gr
On Aug 25, 4:02 am, "Johan S. R. Nielsen"
wrote:
> > 2. If one has a non-symbolic polynomial currently, it won't plot with
> > the new plotting syntax.
>
> > plot(f,0,5) # works, old-school Sage
> > plot(f,(x,0,5)) # doesn't work, new-school Sage
> > plot(f,x,0,5) # doesn't work, though sort of
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/sympow-1.018.1.p8.spkg
which is merged in the latest alpha fixes the SYMPOW issues on Solaris x86 and
OpenSolaris x86.
It is 99% identical to the SYMPOW of mine that Mike tested before, but there are
a couple of minor changes. Assuming that
On 08/25/10 02:01 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jonathan Hanke wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to build sage 4.5.2 on a Sun Fire X4450 server (Intel Xenon
processors) running Redhat linux (Enterprise edition), and get an
> 2. If one has a non-symbolic polynomial currently, it won't plot with
> the new plotting syntax.
>
> plot(f,0,5) # works, old-school Sage
> plot(f,(x,0,5)) # doesn't work, new-school Sage
> plot(f,x,0,5) # doesn't work, though sort of makes sense it shouldn't
> since x isn't a symbolic variable n
As I remarked yesterday Sage 4.5.3.alpha2.tar was the first ever Sage to build
and pass all doc tests on OpenSolaris.
Since Skynet became available against yesterday, I built and tested on there,
and again all tests pass.
sage -t -long devel/sage/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py
> > > 1. There is no way to get a symbolic interpolated polynomial de novo
> > > without going through polynomial rings, e.g. all these steps:
> > >
> > > pts = [(1,2),(2,3),(3,2),(4,3),(5,2),(6,3)]
> > > R.=QQ[]
> > > f = R.lagrange_polynomial(pts)
> > > SR(f)
> > >
Everything you're doin
17 matches
Mail list logo
