The Sage booth at the joint mathematics meetings is going pretty well,
and I think it was worth doing. It is very useful for advertising our
existence, capabilities, and future plans.
Many people stopped by to express their appreciation for Sage and the
efforts of its developers. I think that in
On Jan 6, 2011, at 11:59 , emil wrote:
> Is there any recommended procedere to make the resulting package
> smaller? I checked the package and e.g. found that dynamic libraries
> are not stripped.
I think you'll find that stripping (dynamic) libraries is counter-productive.
But try it and let
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, G Hahn wrote:
> Thanks for your help!
When you add a .pyx file, you will also have to edit
SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/module_list.py to get "sage -b" to recognize it.
Look at the examples in that file to see what you should add.
William
>
> On 5 Jan., 04:46, Kwankyu L
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Eviatar wrote:
> I was also wondering about this. I think a lightweight binary
> distribution without the entire devel directory could be useful (of
> course as an alternative to the existing binary download). It would
> decrease the download size dramatically.
Not
Hi all!
I needed them for a seminar project, so I updated the openmpi (see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8537) mpi4py (see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8538) packages and the
mpi4py docu (see http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10566).
The packages worked on ubuntu
I was also wondering about this. I think a lightweight binary
distribution without the entire devel directory could be useful (of
course as an alternative to the existing binary download). It would
decrease the download size dramatically.
I imagine that the reason this is not done is so developmen
On Thursday 06 January 2011, Simon King wrote:
> Alternatively, it could be a method of polynomial ideals, since ideals
> in Sage have a fixed list of generators - like f_1,...,f_r.
While that's true note that in principle the design is such that we
distinguish between ideals and their generating
Thanks for your advice, Simon. Sounds like
sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.MPolynomialIdeal would be
a good class choice. I do have a trac account ('araichev') and have
read about patches but have not actually submitted one yet. So i'll
get on that by submitting my simple alg_dep me
I created a binaries package for the use in a Live CD with the
commands
export SAGE_FAT_BINARY="yes"
make
./sage -bdist x.y.z-fat
Testing seems ok (I am still unsure about sage -testall --optional,
see
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/d3ffa3501849162b).
Now I have
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:29 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> In 4.6.1.alpha3 try this:
>
> sage: for E in cremona_curves([11..40]): t=
> E.lseries().dokchitser().derivative(E.rank(),1)
>
> sage: quit
>
> and see something like this:
>
>
> sage: quit
> Exiting Sage (CPU time 0m0.74s, Wall time 0m31.41s).
How much work would it be to change PARI/GP so that the GP compiler is
accessible via a PARI library call? Then it would be possible to mix
libpari use with gp script snippets and avoid pexpect-ing GP entirely.
I don't know how much havoc gp-programs designed to run alone would
wreak on PARI's glob
In 4.6.1.alpha3 try this:
sage: for E in cremona_curves([11..40]): t=
E.lseries().dokchitser().derivative(E.rank(),1)
sage: quit
and see something like this:
sage: quit
Exiting Sage (CPU time 0m0.74s, Wall time 0m31.41s).
Exiting spawned PARI/GP interpreter process.
Exiting spawned PARI/GP int
Hi Alex!
On 6 Jan., 04:15, Alex Raichev wrote:
> As a newbie Sage contributor, i thought it would be good practice to
> submit small chunks of code (instead of big ones like what i recently
> submitted).
First of all, thank you for contributing to Sage! And I think it is a
good thing to start wi
13 matches
Mail list logo
