On 30 Okt., 01:39, kcrisman wrote:
> I would say that your earlier example of 1/0 is a better example of
> inconsistency. Also compare
>
> sage: 1./0
> +infinity
> sage: CC(1)/0
> NaN - NaN*I
>
> And why -, not +, NaN*I? Since
>
> sage: CC(-1)/0
> NaN - NaN*I
> sage: CC(0)/CC(0)
> NaN - NaN*I
>
On Oct 29, 6:02 pm, Eviatar wrote:
> I am aware of this; however, the log of 0 is not defined, b^n=0, unless the
> base is also 0. As a limit, it can be evaluated to -Infinity. However, Sage
> typically does not use the limit of an undefined expression, as can be seen
> by 1/0 returning an error
I am aware of this; however, the log of 0 is not defined, b^n=0, unless the
base is also 0. As a limit, it can be evaluated to -Infinity. However, Sage
typically does not use the limit of an undefined expression, as can be seen
by 1/0 returning an error.
--
To post to this group, send an email
On 29 Okt., 19:55, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8654
As the subject says.
-leif
--
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 op
On 29 Okt., 14:57, Simon King wrote:
> (2) use underscore lazy attributes internally, but keep the methods
> around, for documentation.
+1
> (1) means: We have fairly good speed and we have documentation.
> (2) means: We have best speed and we have documentation, but the
> method carrying the
Hello,
There are various issues with the canonicalization (i.e. resolving
symbolic links and making the path absolute) of $SAGE_ROOT. First of
all, canonicalization is only done in $SAGE_ROOT/sage and not (properly)
in sage-env. Second, the result is highly system-dependent, depending
on the ava
Hello,
I have a sympow spkg at #11920 ready for review. The source code of
sympow is almost not changed, the changes are mostly in the
configuration/build/installation of sympow.
Major changes are:
* Check FPU precision and use of fused-multiply-and-add instructions in
spkg-install, apply variou
Hello,
Qepcad is an experimental package dealing with quantifier elimination.
There are doctests in sage/interfaces/qepcad.py which are badly
formatted and returning wrong results. The patch fixes this. This
patch is more important than it looks because it is a dependency for
#5155 (Fix doctests
Hello,
Currenly quotient rings of polynomial rings do not have a cardinality()
method. The patch at #11947 implements this (essentially, the
cardinality equals the cardinality of the base field to the power the
degree of the modulus).
See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11947
Jeroen.
Hello,
There is a very simple patch to add a "sage -sqlite3" command line
option and a test in sage/tests/cmdline.py
See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8654
Jeroen.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
Hello,
Following a question on sage-support, I created a patch to enable the
numeric evaluation of erf() at complex arguments and with arbitrary
precision. The error function is evaluated using the PARI library. The
patch itself is fairly simple and should be easy to review. However,
this patch
Hello,
Currently, there is no support for the conversion of Python types (int,
long, float, complex) to PARI. This means that strings are used for the
conversion. First of all, this means that conversion from complex types
is broken because PARI does not understand "2j". Second, using strings
i
Hello,
Ticket #11904 deals with the conversion of polynomials over number
fields to PARI. Currently, this cannot be done in Sage. The issue is
with PARI's variable priorities. The patch fixes this by using the
variable "y" instead of "x" by default for PARI number field elements.
Then "x" can b
Hello,
could somebody please review a patch which fixes the conversion from QQ
and matrices over ZZ/QQ to PARI? The ticket is #11854. The main issue
is that rationals are not converted properly. This can lead to equal
PARI rational numbers or number field ideals having a different hash.
The mat
Hello,
Could somebody please review the following patch from #11130:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/11130/11130-4.7.2.alpha3.patch
This is in the ticket to upgrade PARI to version 2.5.0. The patch fixes
a doctest which was added in sage-4.7.2.alpha3. Everything else on this
Hello sage-devel and sage-nt,
At #11321, there is a new lcalc spkg ready for review. This is a
dependency for the new PARI (#11130), so it is very important that this
gets merged, there are a lot of tickets depending on this.
In order to review this, it is not necessary to know anything about
lc
In the two Sage Days I've been to, the schedule was something like this:
Every morning, we would all congregate at the conference room, and there
would be a talk. After the talk, on the first day, we each mentioned some
topic we were going to work on, and this would be written on the
whiteboard
Thanks for the responses.
What i still don't know is how coding sprints are suposed to be. Do
they happen in the hotel or in the conference rooms? Are they planed
in advance or do they just happen spontaneously? Do they involve
everybody working together in one task or each one works in a
differen
Hi Maarten,
On 29 Okt., 12:59, Maarten Derickx
wrote:
> I would certainly let the methods also exist in the future since regular
> users might also be interested in the info.
Agreed. My current proposal is to keep the methods and have underscore
lazy attributes.
> And although Simon showed that
Do you remember why people agree on t
On Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:18:53 AM UTC+2, fhivert wrote:
>
> Hi There,
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:52:13PM -0700, Simon King wrote:
>
> > With a deprecation warning, too? Or better no deprecation, since your
> > solution implies that there will b
Hi Florent,
On 29 Okt., 11:18, Florent Hivert wrote:
> For what concerns super_categories
> all_super_categories, they definitely carry some important mathematical
> information so I don't think we can consider them as programming
> technicalities. Therefore we put them as function. Note that I'm
Hi There,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:52:13PM -0700, Simon King wrote:
> PS:
>
> On 29 Okt., 00:52, Maarten Derickx
> wrote:
> > Make the functions super_categories and all_super_categories say in the
> > documentation that developers shouldn't use these but that they should use
> > the laz
On 29 Okt., 04:18, kcrisman wrote:
> > sage: log(2, 0)
> > ValueError: m must be positive
>
> The base is the *second* argument.
Not 'base', 'm'. ;-)
-leif
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsub
23 matches
Mail list logo
