To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
expected. The main issue I could see with changing the default is
that individuals running with the de
To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
expected. The main issue I could see with changing the default is
that individuals running with the de
I am administrating a Sage server for an educational institution that
needs to used not self-signed certificates. I successfully generated
the request and a certificate was purchased; sage accepts the cert;
but, most web browsers see the cert as invalid without the
intermediate certificate chain.
On 12/1/10 8:06 PM, akm wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:35 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
You might just use matplotlib directly in Sage:
See, for example,
http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/examples/pylab_examples/date_demo_c...
http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/examples/pylab_examples/date_demo1
or just l
What does the "adjoint of a matrix" mean to you?
I was brought up to understand it to mean the transpose of the matrix
of signed minors, a matrix close to being the inverse of the
original. Poking around (Wikipedia, Planet Math, Math World) would
imply this is known as the "classical adjoint." H
On Dec 1, 6:49 pm, kcrisman wrote:
> But 4.6.1 will contain Numpy 1.5, and you can always try out the
> latest alpha (see the sage-release Google group for more info).
Will try that, thanks.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, s
But
On Dec 1, 9:16 pm, akm wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:06 pm, akm wrote:
>
> > I'm running Sage 4.5; maybe upgrading to 4.6 will help.
>
> Not likely I guess as Sage 4.6 contains numpy-1.3.0.p4.spkg.
But 4.6.1 will contain Numpy 1.5, and you can always try out the
latest alpha (see the sage-release Go
I'm sure you are aware of the Sage open-source mathematics software
http://www.sagemath.org/
which has a mission of creating a viable free open source alternative
to Magma, Maple, Mathematica and MATLAB.
Obviously Sage has a test suite where results from Sage are compared
to a set of known resul
On Dec 1, 5:30 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> >> But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's
> >> already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit
> >> anything to Sage anymore because of this.
>
> > :
On Dec 1, 6:06 pm, akm wrote:
> I'm running Sage 4.5; maybe upgrading to 4.6 will help.
>
Not likely I guess as Sage 4.6 contains numpy-1.3.0.p4.spkg.
--
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...@
On Dec 1, 3:35 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> You might just use matplotlib directly in Sage:
>
> See, for example,
>
> http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/examples/pylab_examples/date_demo_c...
>
> http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/examples/pylab_examples/date_demo1
>
> or just look in the gallery:
On 12/1/10 4:14 PM, akm wrote:
Has anyone written a version of list_plot that accepts dates?
We're doing some log file analysis and the closest I've gotten is to
convert the timestamps to epoch seconds.
Unfortunately epoch seconds are unreadable as axis tick-mark labels.
Any ideas?
You migh
On 1 December 2010 22:36, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>>> I do think it would be good to start using nosetest
>>> (http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.2/) to
>>> automatically run all functions that start with "test_" in all files,
On Dec 1, 11:25 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
> I rather suspect the input, which shows how to use the taylor
> function, could be any of numerous inputs. The one chosen
>
> sage: taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3)
>
> gives a huge output which is going to be next to impossible to verify
> analytically.
For th
On Dec 2, 11:36 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
> >> Verifying correctness of tests is not a waste of time.
>
> > I don't know what the current coverage is, but lets say for argument
> > it needs another 1000 tests to get 100% coverage. It's better t
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>> I do think it would be good to start using nosetest
>> (http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.2/) to
>> automatically run all functions that start with "test_" in all files,
>
> I suggested 'nose' was added a long time ago
>
>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's
>> already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit
>> anything to Sage anymore because of this.
>
> :(
>
>> I do think it would be good to start using nos
On 1 December 2010 20:01, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>> On 1 December 2010 18:18, David Roe wrote:
>>> I disagree that doctests should need to be independently verified.
>>
>> I think we will have to agree to differ then.
>
> I agree with David Ro
Has anyone written a version of list_plot that accepts dates?
We're doing some log file analysis and the closest I've gotten is to
convert the timestamps to epoch seconds.
Unfortunately epoch seconds are unreadable as axis tick-mark labels.
Any ideas?
Thanks!
Best
Andrew
--
To post to this g
> But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's
> already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit
> anything to Sage anymore because of this.
:(
> I do think it would be good to start using nosetest
> (http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 1 December 2010 18:18, David Roe wrote:
>> I disagree that doctests should need to be independently verified.
>
> I think we will have to agree to differ then.
I agree with David Roe.
I also would like to encourage David Kirkby (or anybo
>
> So you admit it would improve stage to check the tests.
>
Of course. My argument is that imposing the requirement to have such
consistency checks in order to get a positive review will make me less
likely to contribute to Sage.
If you are going to give an example, how much longer does it tak
On 1 December 2010 18:18, David Roe wrote:
> I disagree that doctests should need to be independently verified.
I think we will have to agree to differ then.
> Of course, if we had an arbitrarily large amount of time to write doctests,
> then it would be a laudible goal. Even now, I think there
I disagree that doctests should need to be independently verified.
Of course, if we had an arbitrarily large amount of time to write doctests,
then it would be a laudible goal. Even now, I think there are situations
where it would be reasonable to ask this of the author of a patch: if there
was s
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:28 PM, pang wrote:
>> On 1 dic, 17:40, David Kirkby wrote:
>>>. But for someone that regularly submits tickets, if they can't be bothered
>>> to test them, then I'm personally not going to spend much time on a ticket
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:28 PM, pang wrote:
> On 1 dic, 17:40, David Kirkby wrote:
>>. But for someone that regularly submits tickets, if they can't be bothered
>> to test them, then I'm personally not going to spend much time on a ticket.
>
> ok, we got each other wrong. The way I understood Ro
On 1 dic, 17:40, David Kirkby wrote:
>. But for someone that regularly submits tickets, if they can't be bothered
> to test them, then I'm personally not going to spend much time on a ticket.
ok, we got each other wrong. The way I understood Robert Bradshaw's
comment is: "the reviewer should spe
On 1 December 2010 15:47, pang wrote:
> On 1 dic, 14:56, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> What has notation got to do with my analogy.? It's the correctness
>> that matters.
>
> For a paper, it is. I would never argue with an author about the
> particular notation she uses in a paper, provided it is con
On 1 dic, 14:56, David Kirkby wrote:
> What has notation got to do with my analogy.? It's the correctness
> that matters.
For a paper, it is. I would never argue with an author about the
particular notation she uses in a paper, provided it is consistent,
but for a ticket, notation (syntax) is v
I really like this example from it:
def newton(f, z, precision=0.001) : while abs(f(x=z)) >= precision:
z = z - f(x=z) / diff(f)(x=z) return z
complex_plot(lambda z : newton(f, z), (-1,1), (-1,1))
I've wanted to be able to plot basins of attraction for my students
easily, but didn't have time to
I'm somewhat unimpressed by the way some doc tests are constrained. An
example was at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10187
where I raised an issue.
There was this test:
sage: taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3)
-1/432*((36*(pi*sqrt(3) + 9*log(3))*euler_gamma^2 + 27*pi^2*log(3) +
72*euler_ga
Hi Sage-Devel,
Last Monday, Franco Saliola and myself gave a talk on Sage at Montreal
Python 17. I think between 60 and 70 persons came. Franco presented
the first part with slides in English. I did a demo using the Notebook
in French. Slides are here :
http://www.thales.math.uqam.ca/~labbes/pdf/
On 1 December 2010 13:37, pang wrote:
> On 1 dic, 13:59, David Kirkby wrote:
>> Why should I waste my time checking the validity of code that the
>> author can't be bothered to check actually works?
>>
>> I feel it's the responsibility of the author to check the code works,
>> not the reviewer.
>
Very nice. It reminds me of (1) the prime which is illegal to possess
(at least in the UK) since in binary it becomes a linux executable
program which can read encrypted DVDs, and (2) Borges's short story
"The library of Babel".
John
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
> I thoug
On 1 dic, 13:59, David Kirkby wrote:
> Why should I waste my time checking the validity of code that the
> author can't be bothered to check actually works?
>
> I feel it's the responsibility of the author to check the code works,
> not the reviewer.
>
> If you submitted a proof to a maths journal
I thought you might like this one:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/risks/21.42.html#subj5
Dave
--
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://g
On 1 December 2010 11:36, pang wrote:
> On 30 nov, 20:50, Robert Bradshaw
>
>> +1. I have the feeling that people are doing more testing than reading
>> of code, which is omitting the most important step, and in particular
>> the one that only a human can do. Testing should happen orthogonal to
>>
On 30 nov, 20:50, Robert Bradshaw
> +1. I have the feeling that people are doing more testing than reading
> of code, which is omitting the most important step, and in particular
> the one that only a human can do. Testing should happen orthogonal to
> someone reading the code and giving it a posi
38 matches
Mail list logo
