Hello all,
On a lark (and a tip from sphinx-dev) that upgrading sphinx would
solve some of my intersphinx cross-reference issue I have created an
spkg (and a patch to sage_autodoc) that upgrade sphinx from 0.6.3 to
1.0.6, I have created a ticket in the trac ( #10620) and uploaded
both files to
Should conversion from numpy arrays/matrices to lists and sage vectors/
matrices be implemented by a .sage() method on the numpy array/
matrix? This is more consistent with the behaviour interface objects.
diagonal_matrix(), matrix(), etc could then outsource the conversion
steps to .sage(), rath
Is there any way to make the TOC one of these GUI-style things where
it looks like it's one level, but then you click on a little arrow and
that topic becomes a second-level immediately (i.e. without actually
moving to another page, so you can still see the rest of the top
level)? My guess is no,
Hi Minh,
+1. Thank you for the good move.
Kwankyu
--
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://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Jan 12, 3:19 pm, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> Running sage -startuptime for various Sage versions 20 times on
>> sage.math.washington.edu and taking the average, then doing several
>> of these runs and taking the minimum yielded:
>>
>> VERS
Hi Kwankyu,
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> I like the new approach. In the same vein, the Contents page may be
> restructured such that it lists only chapter titles, and each chaper
> has its own contents page. The current Contents page is too long to
> scroll down to reac
Hi Eviatar,
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Eviatar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think there should be a consistent reference style throughout the
> Sage documentation; there doesn't seem to be one now. AMS seems
> appropriate, http://tinyurl.com/2dknqzh. What do you think?
This is a good idea and can
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:07 PM, peb wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> do you have any plan to include Modelica (OpenModelica or JModelica)
> within SAGE?
If you want to include any software with Sage, you can package it
yourself or get someone interested to do the packaging. See ticket
#10110 [1] fo
On 2011-01-12 15:19, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Running sage -startuptime for various Sage versions 20 times on
> sage.math.washington.edu and taking the average, then doing several
> of these runs and taking the minimum yielded:
>
> VERSIONSECONDS
> 4.4 1.2025
> 4.4.3 1.2956
> 4.5.
Cool beans, Martin. I'll take your advice and pop the method into
mq.MPolynomialSystem after you move the class into
sage.rings.polynomial.
Thanks.
Alex
On Jan 13, 12:21 pm, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011, AlexRaichevwrote:
>
> > I had some library problems in creating a
On Jan 12, 3:19 pm, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Running sage -startuptime for various Sage versions 20 times on
> sage.math.washington.edu and taking the average, then doing several
> of these runs and taking the minimum yielded:
>
> VERSION SECONDS
> 4.4 1.2025
> 4.4.3 1.2956
> 4.5.2
On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Alex Raichev wrote:
> I had some library problems in creating a Sage sandbox but resolved
> them with the help of ask.sagemath.org. So now i'm back into
> submitting to Sage a function that checks whether a list of
> polynomials is algebraically independent. Since my
Running sage -startuptime for various Sage versions 20 times on
sage.math.washington.edu and taking the average, then doing several
of these runs and taking the minimum yielded:
VERSIONSECONDS
4.4 1.2025
4.4.3 1.2956
4.5.2 1.3026
4.5.3 1.3165
4.6 1.4462
4.6.1
I had some library problems in creating a Sage sandbox but resolved
them with the help of ask.sagemath.org. So now i'm back into
submitting to Sage a function that checks whether a list of
polynomials is algebraically independent. Since my function uses an
elimination ideal, i took Simon's advice
A patch at:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10604
adds NumPy arrays as input to the diagonal_matrix() constructor.
Rob
--
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
Dear all,
my apologies for an off-topic posting, but this is relevant to the
survival of Sage-related (and Pure Maths in general) research in one
academic institution
My University (mostly Engineering) is in the midst of changing its
tenure and promotion requirements, and is currently incline
Wednesday morning, maybe bug days put a burden on something...
--
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://groups.google.com/group/sage
> Also some info for ckrisman about
> R-plotting:http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8868
> This binary package works for me without having xorg-dev packages/
> headers installed, i.e.
> sage -sh
> R
> demo(graphics)
> produces the demo-plots. During creation of the binaries the headers
> a
There is now a patch for this at:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10470
On Dec 22 2010, 2:09 pm, "Nicolas M. Thiery" wrote:
> Hi Rob!
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 03:09:55PM -0800, Rob Beezer wrote:
> > Symptom: The following code would appear to run forever, since the
> >
W. Stein wrote
> For Sage to run, I think all that's *needed* is:
> SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/build/sage
So to do a thorough job I went on further with this:
Stripping by approach W.Stein
-
Second Approach was like W. Stein suggested, I kept
SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage-main/build
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Harald Schilly
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 08:38, emil wrote:
>> If this proves stable I would recommend to consider that
>> binary packages should be patched this way.
>
> I think that's definitely something we should look into! Could you
> post a bash scrip
These are very old methods that David Joyner put in Sage when there
was virtually nothing for calculus - particularly pedagogical examples
- in Sage. I believe they only work with the Piecewise class, and
return Piecewise functions (which can't do much). In
sage.functions.piecewise.py :
- David
> I think that's definitely something we should look into! Could you
> post a bash script? What somebody also has to check is, if it is still
> possible to do development. i.e. apply some patches, changing cython
> files, sage -b and then checking it again.
Hi Harald,
this is the procedure sugges
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 08:38, emil wrote:
> If this proves stable I would recommend to consider that
> binary packages should be patched this way.
I think that's definitely something we should look into! Could you
post a bash script? What somebody also has to check is, if it is still
possible to
On Jan 12, 7:38 am, emil wrote:
> On Jan 11, 9:49 pm, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:32 AM, emil wrote:
> > > On Jan 10, 10:09 pm, Volker Braun wrote:
> > >> you can use fslint to identify duplicate files and merge them (i.e.
> > >> hardlink
> > >> them to a
Hi!
At sage-algebra, there currently is a thread about refactoring
sage.structure.element.Element, since some people think that Element
should not have a category -- currently, 1.category() yields "Category
of elements of Integer Ring", which may sound odd and yields no
information that isn't alre
26 matches
Mail list logo
