> > Again I have to credit Sebastian Pancratz and Fredrik Johansson here
> > for raising the standard in flint. I thought I had been producing
> > beautiful code until Sebastian started rewriting some of it for
> > me. :-)
I downloaded Flint and looked at the source code and documentation.
First
Hi Sage Developers,
To help with porting Sage to OS X 10.7, I bought 10.7, installed it, and
setup a public-facing machine (actually, the old bsd.math.washington.edu)
with OS X 10.7 and *XCode 4.1* installed on it.If you had an account on
the old bsd.math.washington.edu computer, then you auto
...[snip]...
> > In regular mathematics it is standard practice to fully document, that
> > is, show the complete proof of your findings. In computational maths
> > we do not do this. There is no particular reason why we don't except
> > that it is not the expected behavior.
>
> Unfortunately this
On Jul 26, 7:02 pm, daly wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 08:30 -0700, Bill Hart wrote:
> To paraphrase your above comment, I believe that we need to raise the
> standards of computational mathematics further toward being "a
> respectable sport".
>
> Consider your observation:
> "Of course p
OK, maybe I figured this out. The parent of my vector space
morphisms, a vector space homset, was not coercing a vector space
morphism properly, so when trying to compare two vector space
morphisms they had unequal parents.
For the record, this was made obvious by calling
canonical_coercion(f, g)
On 7/26/11 12:03 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Rob Beezer mailto:goo...@beezer.cotse.net>> wrote:
I've built a class for vector space morphisms, aka linear
transformations. Mostly this just extends free module morphisms,
while making a few distinctions
On 07/26/11 15:31, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>>
>> How's this looking?
>
> It is a good start. Here are some suggestions:
>
> - The code blocks should be preceeded with :: and indented. More
> information is available here:
>
> http://sagemath.org/doc/developer/conventions.html#documentation-string
On Jul 26, 12:03 pm, William Stein wrote:
> Did you overload *both* __cmp__ *and* __hash__?
The matrix morphism class implements just __cmp__, with no __hash__.
Existing free module morphism class implements neither, my new vector
space morphism class implements neither.
Free module morphisms b
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:20:35 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 07/20/11 13:26, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> >
> > If you are adding tests only for integration, starting a new file
> > sage/symbolic/tests.py might be better.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Don't forget to mention the ticket number in the test.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> I've built a class for vector space morphisms, aka linear
> transformations. Mostly this just extends free module morphisms,
> while making a few distinctions between behavior for vector spaces
> versus modules over rings. Everything seems to
I've built a class for vector space morphisms, aka linear
transformations. Mostly this just extends free module morphisms,
while making a few distinctions between behavior for vector spaces
versus modules over rings. Everything seems to be working fine, but I
cannot get equality testing to work.
On 7/26/11 11:03 AM, William Stein wrote:
(Sorry if anybody's favorite Sage component is missed in the attached
diagram -- these were just the notes for my talk, and the diagram I
actually drew was by hand with chalk and had ... below some spots to
emphasize incompleteness.)
Nice; I think it's
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 08:30 -0700, Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
...[snip]...
>
> Of course properly citing Pari and the algorithm used and checking
> under what conditions the result is meaningful, etc, assumes that
> these things are well documented and accessible. So, a positive step
> the P
On Jul 26, 5:59 pm, William Stein wrote:
> When doing such investigations, we care greatly that the data we get is
> correct. We just don't care so much that the program producing it be
> *proven* correct in a formal and technically rigorous sense.
I understand that you qualified that with "s
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> Regarding rigor, mathematics itself went through a phase where
> informal arguments were displaced with formal ones. Likewise, informal
> computer programs will eventually give way to formally verified ones,
> and this will naturally be embraced
On Jul 26, 1:51 am, rjf wrote:
> I hope that Bill was hoping to stir up some dissenting opinions.
Yes, naturally.
However, it looks to me that you have simply recorded the way things
currently are. People will do whatever they feel like. That's true by
definition.
Regarding rigor, mathematic
Hi Simon,
After reading what you wrote, I fully agree with you. Your distinction
between citing a citation and citing the original work is a useful
one. This would happen naturally if you focused on identifying the
algorithm and understanding its limitations, as I recommended. But
they way you hav
On 2011-07-25 21:57, Karim Belabas wrote:
> We badly need feedback at a higher level, from developpers or would-be
> developpers, regarding the features they think are lacking in Pari, and
> are preventing them from developping in Pari the way they would like to.
I'm sorry to say this (I would cert
18 matches
Mail list logo
