On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
>
...
> Sometimes Richard can be helpful, and obviously knows quite a bit about
> mathematical software. But for reasons known only to Richard, he devotes a
> large
> proportion of his time being negative, unhelpful and generally obnoxious.
>
It's
On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> http://www.math.bme.hu/~jtoth/FelsMma/mma.review.pdf
>
> but it is one of the most negative, biased "papers" I've ever seen.
Could you be more specific?
Is there a particular statement that you believe to be false?
After all, that paper was review
On Monday, January 3, 2011 11:28:16 PM UTC+1, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> That corresponds to 17,000 visits from London ... I Perhaps it's just the
> size of the
> city + the number of universities here?
>
Maybe London is the City plus the surroundings? Anyhow, I pulled out the
"service provider
> I don't understand your point. If you have a 64-bit kernel but 32-bit
> userspace then you can't just build a 64-bit Sage. Despite our worst
> attempts we are still not shipping with glibc, ncurses, zlib, freetype, ...
>
> My system, on the other hand, is multilib and I think I have all necessar
I don't understand your point. If you have a 64-bit kernel but 32-bit
userspace then you can't just build a 64-bit Sage. Despite our worst
attempts we are still not shipping with glibc, ncurses, zlib, freetype, ...
My system, on the other hand, is multilib and I think I have all necessary
libra
> As far as I know, there is no better way than to look at the binaries (e.g.
> "file $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/python"). That said, I think you are incorrectly
> assuming that SAGE64 corresponds to the architecture. In fact,
>
> SAGE64=yes forces 64-bit build
> SAGE64=no does not force 64-bit, and will
As far as I know, there is no better way than to look at the binaries (e.g.
"file $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/python"). That said, I think you are incorrectly
assuming that SAGE64 corresponds to the architecture. In fact,
SAGE64=yes forces 64-bit build
SAGE64=no does not force 64-bit, and will build what
Hi,
thanks Harald for this update.
> And for curiosity, top cities across the whole world (100%):
> 1. London 1.4%
That corresponds to 17,000 visits from London (Google won't give me the number
of unique visitors per city). I'm quite surprised by this: I know of no
university in London which a
Hello!
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:02:02 +0100
"Nicolas M. Thiery" wrote:
> Hi Rob!
>
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 11:37:48PM -0800, Rob Beezer wrote:
> > Its good to see all the interest in an English version. I think it
> > would be an incredibly worthwhile project.
>
> +1
>
I do also bel
Hello, I thought it might interest you to see some website statistics of 2010:
Visits: 1,030,456 ... +32% from last year.
Best month November, with nearly 100,000 visits.
Unique Visitors (this is the number from above minus the ones who come back)
607,882 ... +34 % from last year.
So, more than
Thank you, but this has to happen from the bash script "sage", so this
doesn't work. Is there a specific file that would signal it was built
for 64-bit?
Thanks in advance.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sag
I must confess that I don't understand the need for SAGE64. I believe it was
added as a workaround for breakage in the OSX toolchain. But I think the
morally right way to check for what Sage was built with is
sage: import platform
sage: platform.architecture()
('64bit', 'ELF')
which will return
This may be a bit unrelated, but is the SAGE64 flag present on all
platforms, and can it be checked to exist on a binary install? If not,
is there another way to check if Sage was built for 64-bit? I'm asking
this because I'm working on an OS architecture check patch, and this
would require checkin
Hi Hugh, hi Eviatar!
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 03:41:36PM -0700, Hugh Thomas wrote:
> I began work on translating the combinatorics chapter of the French
> book last summer, after Nicholas Thiéry asked if anyone might be
> interested in doing so. (I then got busy with other things and
> hav
Hi Rob!
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 11:37:48PM -0800, Rob Beezer wrote:
> Its good to see all the interest in an English version. I think it
> would be an incredibly worthwhile project.
+1
> If folks want to do a freely licensed English translation, I am
> definitely interested.
Cool!
> A
On 2011-01-01 07:53, William Stein wrote:
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10542
Looks like a duplicate of #10303 to me.
--
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
On Jan 1, 2011, at 7:53 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>> Hi, all,
>> When I run, say, 4.6, I get this printout prior to the sage banner:
>> Detected SAGE64 flag
>> Building Sage on OS X in 64-bit mode
>> Is this necessary? There's no build un
Blocker ticket #9163 (Doctest error in expect.py on Cygwin and OS X)
still needs review before sage-4.6.1 can be released. Can somebody have
a look?
--
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...@goo
> On Jan 2, 10:11 pm, Eviatar wrote:
> > Sorry for bumping, but is there any news on this? I would be willing
> > to assist with the translation aspects.
>
> Don't say sorry! Thanks for the bump, as I had totally missed about
> half this thread, since I was doing some other things about the time
Thank you Rob,
Feel free to contact me if you do take it up. I can assist with the
linguistic aspects but most probably not the technical.
Cheers!
--
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...@goog
"> I don't know if you have ever seen Richard's review of Mathematica:
>
> http://www.math.bme.hu/~jtoth/FelsMma/mma.review.pdf
>
> but it is one of the most negative, biased "papers" I've ever seen. I'd like
> to
> know if some of his criticisms are true or not, but the paper is so biased,
> tha
21 matches
Mail list logo
