Hi Robert,
On 10 Feb., 21:10, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> ...
> Are you perhaps working of a more recent alpha? (This could answer the
> previous question as well, though the startuptime test is still
> somewhat flakey too.)
Last night, I built sage-4.6.2.alpha4 from sources. My patch for #8800
(st
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 22:57 -0800, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Bruno!
>
> On 11 Feb., 01:37, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
> > > You could have both consistencies. That depends on how you define gcd
> > > and lcm:
> >
> > > - Quotient fields as described by Bruno.
> > > - Fields: zero if both elements are ze
Hi Bruno!
On 11 Feb., 01:37, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
> > You could have both consistencies. That depends on how you define gcd
> > and lcm:
>
> > - Quotient fields as described by Bruno.
> > - Fields: zero if both elements are zero. A non-zero element
> > otherwise (most fields would choose 1 here
If there was a simple API to map from a 3D point to a 2D point the
rendered output, then it would be much easier to superimpose text
ourselves. However, if it's "pretty easy" to add Hershey Roman font
into Tachyon itself, this would be a wonderful and well-used addition.
- Robert
On Thu, Feb 10,
On 2/6/11 12:40 AM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
I have permission from the author of Tachyon to forward his message
below to the Sage list. He's basically interested in whether there is
_anything_ he could do to make Tachyon more useful for Sage. See
below.
I think it would be cool to be able
I've posted the latest test version of Tachyon here, for those that
want to give it a spin.
I'm still working on updating the docs, but I expect to have that done
in the next two weeks.
http://www.photonlimited.com/~johns/tachyon/files/alpha/
Cheers,
John Stone
On Feb 10, 10:30 pm, John Ston
Hi,
On Feb 6, 6:29 am, David Joyner wrote:
Hi,
> > I was also curious what portions of the Tachyon APIs are
> > exposed in SAGE now, and whether it might be time to
>
> See http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/plot/plot3d/tachyon.html
Thanks. Can someone change the email address listed f
Hi,
On Feb 6, 3:31 am, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> On 02/ 6/11 07:38 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> > Dear John& sage-devel,
[trimmed...]
> > 1) Use autotools/libtools to build a shared libtachyon in a portable manner.
>
> Like you, I quite like the autoconf/automake/libool approach. But I was quite
I've pondered adding text rendering as a built-in feature of Tachyon,
but up to this point I have resisted due to the complexity involved.
(whatever font set I would choose would undoubtably not be exactly the
right thing for any particular usage). The best way to do this is
usually to build the f
Hi,
I sent this to Volker off-list already, but now that I can post,
here it is for others to read:
Volker,
Thanks for the suggestions. The shared libtachyon via
autotools
is probably a good idea, though it would only be usable for
the
non-MPI builds. MPI programs must always be compiled from
> > On 10 February 2011 20:59, Francois Bissey
> >
> > It appears this was a bug created by ECL which the ECL developer has
> > acknowledged
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00671.html
> >
> > and is fixed in CVS. So I think we should leave Maxima untouched,
>> Let me phrase it like this: There are different interpretations of the
>> term "consistent".
@Simon: You are right to distinguish the two kinds of consistencies.
And I can understand that sometimes it is preferable to have the
algebraic consistency. I tend to care about elements of the objects
> On 10 February 2011 20:59, Francois Bissey
>
> wrote:
> > Reading the message linked by Karl it seems easy to patch for this
> > behavior. Of course there could be other problems elsewhere with a
> > similar origin. I'd say we should go ahead with a patch in maxima (line
> > 831 of the file
> >
On 10 February 2011 20:59, Francois Bissey
wrote:
> Reading the message linked by Karl it seems easy to patch for this
> behavior. Of course there could be other problems elsewhere with a similar
> origin. I'd say we should go ahead with a patch in maxima (line 831 of the
> file
> src/ifactor.lis
+1.
Love it.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> http://www.guardian-re.com/Southwest+Montana+Photos/sage+grouse.jpg
>
> John
>
> --
> 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 10 February 2011 20:32, kcrisman wrote:
> > I get essentially (probably exactly) the same errors on OS X 10.4
> > PPC.If anyone else tries this, don't forget you have to rebuild (./
> > sage -f maxima) Maxima after building the new ECL.
> >
> > Francois' idea is great. I mentioned the a
On 10 February 2011 20:32, kcrisman wrote:
> I get essentially (probably exactly) the same errors on OS X 10.4
> PPC. If anyone else tries this, don't forget you have to rebuild (./
> sage -f maxima) Maxima after building the new ECL.
>
> Francois' idea is great. I mentioned the apparent bug,
Hi Robert,
On 10 Feb., 21:10, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> Are you perhaps working of a more recent alpha? (This could answer the
> previous question as well, though the startuptime test is still
> somewhat flakey too.)
I am working with Sage Version 4.6.2.alpha0, Release Date: 2011-01-13.
However,
I get essentially (probably exactly) the same errors on OS X 10.4
PPC.If anyone else tries this, don't forget you have to rebuild (./
sage -f maxima) Maxima after building the new ECL.
Francois' idea is great. I mentioned the apparent bug, which was
pointed out on the Maxima list (handling 1
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I recently opened trac ticket #10763 (remove some overhead that slows
> down matrix multiplication). The patch bot says that the patch
> applies, but some doctests fail. However, when I tried some of the
> failing tests on the command l
Hi!
I recently opened trac ticket #10763 (remove some overhead that slows
down matrix multiplication). The patch bot says that the patch
applies, but some doctests fail. However, when I tried some of the
failing tests on the command line, everything was fine. I am now
running the test suite, but I
> I've updated ECL to the latest upstream release
>
> http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/ecl-11.1.1.spkg
>
> Can people test this package, then run the doctests. Note the changes are
> not committed yet, but the are a note in SPKG.txt, and of course the
> source code has changed
> Well, I used to use gcd for obtaining the primitive integral vector
> with a specified rational direction. My concern on Trac 3214 was that
> gcd(a1, ..., ak) depended on the order of arguments and I wanted it to
> be fixed. The eventual solution was to agree that gcd as the "greatest
> common di
On 2/10/11 9:53 AM, Dox wrote:
Nicalas... Your suggestion almost work, and in fact it is exactly what
I'm talking about!
Specifically, my idea is to work with connections with values in a non-
Abelian Lie algebra, SU(2), so there are 3 generators.
Therefore, the first entry of my function is a
I've define the action of the exterior derivative on the non-Abelian
connection,
class nAform(object):
def __init__(self, a, b):
self._form = a
self._matrix = b
def __add__(self, other):
if isinstance(other, nAform):
if (self._matrix == other._matrix):
On Feb 10, 11:01 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:55 AM, William Stein wrote:
> > [... gcd stuff ...]
>
> It seems like nobody explained how the current gcd definition got
> included. It's from a patch to rational.pyx from Alex Ghitza (who I
> cc'd) that did this:
>
> -
Is the last line a bug, or should the input required to be sorted and
an error raised? Or am I missing something? The help for rank/unrank
is not very complete.
sage: C = Combinations([0,1,2], 2)
sage: C.unrank(1)
[0, 2]
sage: C.rank([0,2])
1
sage: C.rank([2,0])
0
--
To post to this group, sen
I have not taken the time to read this whole thread, but here goes anyway:
The distinction is between ideals of Q (which are of course only (0)
and (1)) and sub-Z-modules of Q, a.k.a. fractional ideals (since in
the generalization to number fields K we (ab)use the terminology
"ideal of K" to mean
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:55 AM, William Stein wrote:
> [... gcd stuff ...]
It seems like nobody explained how the current gcd definition got
included. It's from a patch to rational.pyx from Alex Ghitza (who I
cc'd) that did this:
-d = self.denom()*other.denom()
-self_d = self.n
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> On 10 Feb., 17:48, luisfe wrote:
>> ...
>> You could have both consistencies. That depends on how you define gcd
>> and lcm:
>>
>> - Quotient fields as described by Bruno.
>> - Fields: zero if both elements are zero. A non-zero el
Hi Luis,
On 10 Feb., 17:48, luisfe wrote:
> ...
> You could have both consistencies. That depends on how you define gcd
> and lcm:
>
> - Quotient fields as described by Bruno.
> - Fields: zero if both elements are zero. A non-zero element
> otherwise (most fields would choose 1 here).
> - PID: a
Oops, I am so sorry. This mail was only meant to be sent to sage-devel
and sage-combinat-devel. Please moderate if still at all possible.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 06:44:11PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 04:51:14AM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> > For #8911 the new pickl
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 04:51:14AM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> For #8911 the new pickle jar was just attached. So I added this file
> to #10632. Probably you can do the same for #7922 (but then the tickets
> might not commute if both change the pickles).
Yeah, that pickle jar procedure is not p
On Feb 10, 2:10 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Bruno
>
> Let me phrase it like this: There are different interpretations of the
> term "consistent".
>
> On the one hand, one could mean "consistency with respect to sub-
> structures": Let S be a sub-ring of a ring R; gcd_R is consistent with
> gcd_S <
http://www.guardian-re.com/Southwest+Montana+Photos/sage+grouse.jpg
John
--
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
Nicalas... Your suggestion almost work, and in fact it is exactly what
I'm talking about!
Specifically, my idea is to work with connections with values in a non-
Abelian Lie algebra, SU(2), so there are 3 generators.
Therefore, the first entry of my function is a form, and the second is
a Lie alg
in maxima, gcd(1/4,1/6) is 1/12, lcm is 1/2
Since maxima immediately simplifies 2/1 to 2, there is no
distinction between gcd(2/1, ) and gcd(2, ...)
That is not to say that INTERNALLY, everything runs through the same
gcd process.
It should be clear that notions like polynomial gcd / con
On Feb 10, 3:19 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi koffie,
> Since QQ is a field, it is a principal ideal domain, where lcm and gcd
> should have something to do with ideals. So, clearly lcm(4/1,2)=1.
It would be good to know what why lcm was written as it is right now.
--
To post to this group, send
Could somebody please review #10487? It cleans up, adds/removes some
doctests in sage/rings/finite_rings/finite_field_ext_pari.py
No actual code is changed.
Thanks,
Jeroen.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
s
Hi koffie,
On 10 Feb., 15:02, koffie wrote:
> So bruno and simon agree that lcm(1/4,1/6) = 1/2 (lcm(numerators)/
> gcd(denominators)) is the most logical.
I do not agree at all with that! "lcm(1/4,1/6)=1/2" was just an
example of one (among others) way to extend lcm from ZZ to QQ. I did
*not*
I've updated ECL to the latest upstream release
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/ecl-11.1.1.spkg
Can people test this package, then run the doctests. Note the changes are not
committed yet, but the are a note in SPKG.txt, and of course the source code has
changed.
It does
So bruno and simon agree that lcm(1/4,1/6) = 1/2 (lcm(numerators)/
gcd(denominators)) is the most logical. It also seems to satisfy dough
wanted relation up to units. I like it because it makes sense if you
think in terms of fractional ideals. And I suggest we switch to that
convention.
When try
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 05:33:15AM -0800, Dox wrote:
> I already define my class, and starts Ok, I have changed the operation
> to __mul__. But now I'd like to define an __add__ operation which
> surpass my knowledge...
>
> Something like this,
> sage: A = MyClass( 3, "Hello")
> sage: B = MyClass(
Hi Doug,
Welcome to the Sage community!
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 01:02:10PM +0800, D. S. McNeil wrote:
> (2) No kwarg constraints in Partitions/Compositions should be mutually
> exclusive. (I think there's a ticket for this but I can't find it
> now.)
>
> Partitions(15,length=5, parts_in
I already define my class, and starts Ok, I have changed the operation
to __mul__. But now I'd like to define an __add__ operation which
surpass my knowledge...
Something like this,
sage: A = MyClass( 3, "Hello")
sage: B = MyClass( 4, "World!")
sage: A+B
( 3, "Hello") + ( 4, "World!")
sage: C = M
Hi Bruno
On 10 Feb., 12:26, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
> True. But in the case of Q (and more generally in the case of the
> quotient field of a (principal?) ring), we can be consistent with the
> ring of integers, without any guess-work.
Sure. This could be one of the definitions I mentioned: lcm(a/
Hi all,
> So, a coercion from QQ to ZZ would presumably be a morphism from QQ to
> ZZ in the category of unital rings - which doesn't exist.
Agreed.
> So, I think it is by far better to have a consistent notion than to
> have to *guess* whether a user really means the integer 2 if s/he
> write 4
Wow!!!
Jason, you're a genius!!! :-)
Thank you for such a complete answer. Now I'll try to define my own
class... :-P
Dox.
On Feb 10, 3:42 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 2/9/11 9:18 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Dox wrote:
> >> Hi people!
>
> >> I was wondering
On Thursday 10 February 2011, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 7 February 2011 20:14, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> > Dear Sage lovers,
> >
> > We're releasing Sage 4.6.2.alpha4.
> >
> > Source archive:
> >
> > http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.6.2.alpha4/sage-4.6.2
> > .alpha4.tar
> >
> >
sage: s=solve(3*x^3-9*x+10==0,x,solution_dict=True)
sage: [n(t[x]) for t in s]
[1.06780542232902 - 1.84949324407141*I, #
0.0277635108030695 + 1.24902476648341*I, # WRONG!
-1.09556893313209 + 0.600468477588001*I]#
sage: s=solve(3*x^3-9*x
+10==0,x,solution_dict=True,to_poly_solve='forc
Hi Doug!
On 10 Feb., 09:40, "D. S. McNeil" wrote:
> @Simon King: as you note, there are multiple ways to extend the
> concept of gcds and lcms to the rationals. In such a situation, it
> would seem that two minimal things you would like would be (1) to
> reduce to the integer case for integer val
@rjf:
> I don't know exactly how this came up, but if 2/1 is in a different domain
> (rational) from 2, (integer), then gcd should probably be 1, since any
> non-zero rational number divides any other, and one commonly uses the
> positive "unit" 1 for such a case.
One also commonly uses the c
On Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:54:03 AM UTC+1, Dan Drake wrote:
>
> I tried to continue the build without Singular just to see what else
> worked, and also got a linker error there too -- with symmetrica, it
> eventually failed with "undefined reference to `cos'"!
>
This should be fixed in htt
> I thought I would try to see if Sage builds in the upcoming version of
> Ubuntu, which is still early in the development stages but I think the
> compilers and other basic system stuff are stable. But there's some kind
> of linker error:
>
> ../kernel/libkernel.a(mod_raw.o): In function `dynl_op
54 matches
Mail list logo
