[sage-devel] permutation groups

In another thread (finite complex reflection groups and matrices over the universal cyclotomic field), Christian wrote: > - is there a Sage implementation of permutation groups, or only the > gap implementation (it takes very long to go through the elements of a > permutation group, even in small e

[sage-devel] Re: finite complex reflection groups and matrices over the universal cyclotomic field

On Apr 8, 7:37 am, Christian Stump wrote: > Hi there, > > I just pushed finite complex reflection groups which I was > implementing these days - the entry point is FiniteReflectionGroup. I > also added a categorial framework. I wanted to see if someone (e.g. > Nicolas?) could have a look as I ne

Re: [sage-devel] Re: has Apple effectively forked gcc?

I suspect that part of the cost of Xcode 4 is to do with the accounting requirements involved in giving away a product free (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime). The next version of OS X will likely come with Xcode 4. I certainly hope that is the case. J -- To post to this group, send

Re: [sage-devel] Re: .hg and build directories in binary tarball?

On Apr 7, 2011, at 15:26 , Georg S. Weber wrote: > > > On 7 Apr., 18:50, IanSR wrote: >> Are ".hg" and "build" directories supposed to be in the binary tarballs? >> I'm looking, in particular, at * >> sage-4.6.2-linux-64bit-red_hat_enterprise_linux_server_release_5.6_tikanga-x86_64-Linux.tar

[sage-devel] sage and python 2.7: migration strategies?

Hi all, Following an initial post by Paulo from mandriva I started to look at using sage with python-2.7 (2.7.1 in fact). The news is two fold: 1) sage seems to work ok. It starts. 2) a good deal of the test suite is shot. As a consequence of 2 it is difficult to work out which parts need to be

[sage-devel] Re: .hg and build directories in binary tarball?

On 7 Apr., 18:50, IanSR wrote: > Are ".hg" and "build" directories supposed to be in the binary tarballs?   > I'm looking, in particular, at * > sage-4.6.2-linux-64bit-red_hat_enterprise_linux_server_release_5.6_tikanga-x86_64-Linux.tar.gz.

Re: Fwd: [sympy] Re: [sage-devel] Re: [cython-users] Scientific Python at SIAM CSE 2011 conference

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:13 AM, mario wrote: > >> From: Mateusz Paprocki <> >> > > In case people are curious, Sage (because of Singular!) takes 0.07 >> > > seconds to do the benchmark that Sympy takes 11 seconds to do at the >> > > end of the Sympy talk:    http://flask.sagenb.org/home/pub/16/ >>

[sage-devel] Re: error doing install_package('glpk')

On Apr 7, 6:59 pm, David Kirkby wrote: > On 7 April 2011 03:35, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > glpk is a standard spkg. > > Version 4.44, if I am right. > > So you seem to have tried installing an optional glpk version 4.42. > > > This looks like a case for it to be removed. > > > I already sugges

[sage-devel] .hg and build directories in binary tarball?

Are ".hg" and "build" directories supposed to be in the binary tarballs? I'm looking, in particular, at * sage-4.6.2-linux-64bit-red_hat_enterprise_linux_server_release_5.6_tikanga-x86_64-Linux.tar.gz.

Re: [sage-devel] MPIR seg fault when building Sage from source on Linux

On 2011-04-07 15:13, IanSR wrote: > Any reason Sage uses MPIR 1.2.2.p2 which is a few years old instead of > the latest version? I can see some threads which describe a 2.x version > of MPIR compiled into Sage. There is a needs_work ticket at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8664 -- To

[sage-devel] Re: Is cross-reviewing allowed?

On Apr 7, 4:16 am, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Simon King wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > On 7 Apr., 09:09, Rob Beezer wrote: > >> I believe I wrote that, and it has been my experience that a "reviewer > >> patch" is often reviewed by the "main author." > > > I was not t

Re: [sage-devel] MPIR seg fault when building Sage from source on Linux

Short answer: gcc 4.1.2 running on a fairly stock CentOS 5.5 with kernel 2.6.18-194.26.1.el5 (x86_64). It is running on a VM (kvm), with source files sitting on an NFS served partition (I mention this because I know NFS+VM+ntp/time+make can cause problems). I've compiled sage in the past on ot

Re: [sage-devel] Re: error doing install_package('glpk')

On 7 April 2011 03:35, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > glpk is a standard spkg. > Version 4.44, if I am right. > So you seem to have tried installing an optional glpk version 4.42. > > This looks like a case for it to be removed. > > I already suggested this a while ago, but got a reply from someone > tha

Re: Re: Fwd: [sympy] Re: [sage-devel] Re: [cython-users] Scientific Python at SIAM CSE 2011 conference

On Thursday 07 April 2011, mario wrote: > > From: Mateusz Paprocki <> > > > > > > In case people are curious, Sage (because of Singular!) takes 0.07 > > > > seconds to do the benchmark that Sympy takes 11 seconds to do at the > > > > end of the Sympy talk:http://flask.sagenb.org/home/pub/16/ >

Re: Fwd: [sympy] Re: [sage-devel] Re: [cython-users] Scientific Python at SIAM CSE 2011 conference

> From: Mateusz Paprocki <> > > > In case people are curious, Sage (because of Singular!) takes 0.07 > > > seconds to do the benchmark that Sympy takes 11 seconds to do at the > > > end of the Sympy talk:    http://flask.sagenb.org/home/pub/16/ > > > Seems like some room for improvement. > > > Mat

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Absolute value of a matrix...

On 2011-04-07 10:54, Simon King wrote: > By the way, *should* |-5| be supported in Sage? Via preparsing? Looks hard to do in a good way, because a parser cannot see the difference between a left and right |. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe fr

[sage-devel] Re: Absolute value of a matrix...

On 7 Apr., 10:43, javier wrote: > ... And in any case > the use of the determinant is completely out of context. +1. There is one reason why one could think that the determinant should be related with the absolute value: Both are often (at least in my experience) denoted by vertical lines: |-5|

[sage-devel] Re: Absolute value of a matrix...

If one thinks of "absolute value" as in the metric sense of "norm" then indeed the determinant makes no sense. Some valid norms for a matrix would be: * The maximum of the absolute values of its entries (supremum norm) * The root of the sum of the squares of all entries (2-norm) * The maximum of th

Re: [sage-devel] Re: has Apple effectively forked gcc?

On 7 April 2011 03:15, kcrisman wrote: >> For many people, this would make Sage no longer free - it would >> effectively cost $5 and none of that money goes to Sage. > > Well, you could still download a binary.  They aren't requiring that > people give them money from things compiled with it, are

[sage-devel] Re: Is cross-reviewing allowed?

On Apr 7, 10:16 am, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Simon King wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > On 7 Apr., 09:09, Rob Beezer wrote: > >> As in many things, my personal feeling is that common sense and good > >> judgement should trump strict rules. +1 I think that this is a mat

Re: [sage-devel] Re: has Apple effectively forked gcc?

On 7 April 2011 02:52, Felix Lawrence wrote: > On Apr 6, 7:19 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote: >> There seems to be a growing body of opinion that Clang >> >> http://clang.llvm.org/ >> >> will replace gcc as the compiler of choice for open-source projects - not >> just >> on OS X. > I've heard this

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Is cross-reviewing allowed?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Simon King wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On 7 Apr., 09:09, Rob Beezer wrote: >> I believe I wrote that, and it has been my experience that a "reviewer >> patch" is often reviewed by the "main author." > > I was not talking about a reviewer patch. Both patches are fairly no

[sage-devel] Re: Is cross-reviewing allowed?

Hi Rob, On 7 Apr., 09:09, Rob Beezer wrote: > I believe I wrote that, and it has been my experience that a "reviewer > patch" is often reviewed by the "main author." I was not talking about a reviewer patch. Both patches are fairly non- trivial. > As in many things, my personal feeling is that

[sage-devel] Re: Is cross-reviewing allowed?

Hi Simon, I believe I wrote that, and it has been my experience that a "reviewer patch" is often reviewed by the "main author." As in a reviewer saying to the principal author "I like your patch, and am ready to give it a positive review, but have posted a patch with some changes. If you agree w

[sage-devel] Re: has Apple effectively forked gcc?

On Apr 7, 4:15 am, kcrisman wrote: > > For many people, this would make Sage no longer free - it would > > effectively cost $5 and none of that money goes to Sage. > > Well, you could still download a binary.  They aren't requiring that > people give them money from things compiled with it, are