On 1/26/12 11:49 PM, Iftikhar Burhanuddin wrote:
http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/16530098836/mind-melter-of-the-day-it-turns-out-that-if-you
(1/998001).n(digits=3500)
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, se
http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/16530098836/mind-melter-of-the-day-it-turns-out-that-if-you
--
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 h
On Jan 26, 2012, at 20:00 , kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 26, 10:55 pm, kcrisman wrote:
>> My apologies if I have missed a reference to this elsewhere; it's late
>> and I didn't search as thoroughly as I might have, though I did
>> search.
>>
>> Found while reviewing #11977:
>>
>> sage: matri
First, like Simon said: "But I wouldn't be so mean to prevent other
people from using it." But I have trouble getting too excited about
this new syntax. What we have works well for me and for my students.
Second, I agree strongly when William said: "I'm more for
*consistency* between the matrix
On Jan 26, 10:53 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 27 January 2012 04:15:32 UTC+8, William wrote:
>
> >> Hi,
>
> >> Earlier today I was arguing that we need to support Xcode 4.x, etc.,
> >> in the context of the PARI bugs.
>
> >>
On Jan 26, 10:55 pm, kcrisman wrote:
> My apologies if I have missed a reference to this elsewhere; it's late
> and I didn't search as thoroughly as I might have, though I did
> search.
>
> Found while reviewing #11977:
>
> sage: matrix_plot(matrix(2,[1,2,3,4]))
> dyld: Library not loaded: /usr/
My apologies if I have missed a reference to this elsewhere; it's late
and I didn't search as thoroughly as I might have, though I did
search.
Found while reviewing #11977:
sage: matrix_plot(matrix(2,[1,2,3,4]))
dyld: Library not loaded: /usr/X11/lib/libfreetype.6.dylib
Referenced from: /usr/X1
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, 27 January 2012 04:15:32 UTC+8, William wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Earlier today I was arguing that we need to support Xcode 4.x, etc.,
>> in the context of the PARI bugs.
>>
>> I'm sitting here with a grad student with a solid Ma
On Friday, 27 January 2012 04:15:32 UTC+8, William wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Earlier today I was arguing that we need to support Xcode 4.x, etc.,
> in the context of the PARI bugs.
>
> I'm sitting here with a grad student with a solid Mac running OS X
> 10.6.8, and trying to get XCode 3.x on it is HELL.
On 1/26/12 8:21 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, David Roe wrote:
Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
I can't seem to construct
matrices with matrix entries (this is not absurd) -- but should the
preparse
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, David Roe wrote:
Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
>>>
>>> We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
>>>
I can't seem to construct
matrices with matrix entries (this is no
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, David Roe wrote:
>>> Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
>>
>> We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
>>
>>> I can't seem to construct
>>> matrices with matrix entries (this is not absurd) -- but should the
>>> preparser grok it? [[1..10; 1
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, David Roe wrote:
>>> Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
>>
>> We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
>>
>>> I can't seem to construct
>>> matrices with matrix entries (this is not absurd) -- but should the
>>> preparser grok it? [[1..10; 1
>> Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
>
> We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
>
>> I can't seem to construct
>> matrices with matrix entries (this is not absurd) -- but should the
>> preparser grok it? [[1..10; 10..20] ; [2..12; 14..24]]
>
> Yes, for sure. And [[1..10;
On Jan 26, 7:19 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:14:36 PM UTC-8, William wrote:
>
> >> [1] If you're using Chrome, check out
> >>http://www.chromeexperiments.com/webgl
>
> > Unless you use Linux, where chrome d
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:14:36 PM UTC-8, William wrote:
>>
>> [1] If you're using Chrome, check out
>> http://www.chromeexperiments.com/webgl
>
>
> Unless you use Linux, where chrome doesn't support webgl despite what the
> documentatio
On 1/26/12 4:14 PM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Is anybody interested in creating a webGL [1] renderer for 3d graphics
for the Sage notebook? We have JMOL, Tachyon, Java3d and x3d renderers
for 3d graphics. Webgl support would be very forward looking. It's
also *3d accelerated* unlike Jmol, so c
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Robert Bradshaw
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky
wr
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky
>>> wrote:
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
>>
>
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:14:36 PM UTC-8, William wrote:
>
> [1] If you're using Chrome, check out
> http://www.chromeexperiments.com/webgl
>
Unless you use Linux, where chrome doesn't support webgl despite what the
documentation says. Works in Firefox, though.
>
--
To post to this gro
Jason, This is an android phone. The the space I just get an "ok"
nothing else. Mike
On Jan 25, 6:46 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 1/25/12 5:13 PM, Michael Madison wrote:
>
> > Jason, On a HTC Thunderbolt with Android 2.3.4 if I put a couple of
> > spaces I get an "ok", but not 2. Mike
>
> Tha
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
>
> Why *not* use it?
The standard argument against prepar
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky
> wrote:
>> On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not* use it?
>>>
>>> The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
>>> have to be careful to not us
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Why *not* use it?
>>
>> The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
>> have to be careful to not use it when writing .py code for the Sage
>> core library. But at
Hi,
Is anybody interested in creating a webGL [1] renderer for 3d graphics
for the Sage notebook? We have JMOL, Tachyon, Java3d and x3d renderers
for 3d graphics. Webgl support would be very forward looking. It's
also *3d accelerated* unlike Jmol, so could provide amazingly good
performance.
W
On 01/26/12 17:00, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky
> wrote:
>> On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not* use it?
>>>
>>> The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
>>> have to be careful to not use it when writing
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Why *not* use it?
>>
>> The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
>> have to be careful to not use it when writing .py code for the Sage
>> core library. But at
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Georg S. Weber
wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> unlike OS X 10.7 Lion (for which no official install DVDs exist), OS X
> 10.6 Snow Leopard came with/on a install DVD (either with the Mac when
> one bought it, or when one bought Snow Leopard later). And on those
> DVD(s),
Hi William,
unlike OS X 10.7 Lion (for which no official install DVDs exist), OS X
10.6 Snow Leopard came with/on a install DVD (either with the Mac when
one bought it, or when one bought Snow Leopard later). And on those
DVD(s), there is also the XCode 3.x package --- to the best of my
knowledge
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> Why *not* use it?
>
> The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
> have to be careful to not use it when writing .py code for the Sage
> core library. But at least this matrix notation will always result
> in a SyntaxError
Interesting idea: we could probably replace the fortran.spkg by a
gcc.spkg and have it compile gcc, gfortran on systems where this is
needed. The size of the gcc spkg would roughly be the same as the
current fortran spkg.
On bsd, I compiled gfortran-4.4.6 from source, compiled the Sage LAPACK
wit
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 26, 3:19 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
>> On 1/26/12 12:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> > To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
>> > rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
>> >
> So the idea would be that one would develop on Mac by doing
>
> ./sage -i gcc
> ./sage -b
+1
David
--
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
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-01-26 21:52, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> I might look into this. I will try a proof-of-concept test on bsd.
> Proof-of-concept successful on bsd. Compiled gcc-4.4.6 and compiled
> PARI with it, PARI passes all tests.
>
> I'd like to t
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>> We're not including it with Sage. We would make it available since
>> XCode is such a pain in the ass (and is not free). That Cython
>> and even "sage -b" don't work without having to pay Apple additional
>> money, gets in the way of our goal
On Jan 26, 3:19 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 1/26/12 12:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> > To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
> > rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
> > Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matl
> We're not including it with Sage. We would make it available since
> XCode is such a pain in the ass (and is not free). That Cython
> and even "sage -b" don't work without having to pay Apple additional
> money, gets in the way of our goals for Sage.
Yeah, I was always wondering why we neede
On 2012-01-26 21:52, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> I might look into this. I will try a proof-of-concept test on bsd.
Proof-of-concept successful on bsd. Compiled gcc-4.4.6 and compiled
PARI with it, PARI passes all tests.
I'd like to try an OS X 10.7 machine if anybody can give me access to
such a ma
On 2012-01-26 21:52, Christopher Swenson wrote:
> 5) why don't you choose clang + llvm?
Because that's what Apple did and it's clearly not working.
--
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...@googl
Ah, my bad. I misinterpreted the original intent as "requiring" GCC as part
of building Sage from source.
Carry on.
:)
--Christopher
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 15:57, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Christopher Swenson
> wrote:
> > -1 for distributing our own version o
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Christopher Swenson
wrote:
> -1 for distributing our own version of gcc.
>
> As someone who has been peripherally involved with this sort of thing at
> Google, here are some downsides:
>
> 1) several hours of extra compiling and testing (a full boostrap build of
>
-1 for distributing our own version of gcc.
As someone who has been peripherally involved with this sort of thing at
Google, here are some downsides:
1) several hours of extra compiling and testing (a full boostrap build of
GCC can be very painful, and running every test can take a very long time
I might look into this. I will try a proof-of-concept test on bsd.
--
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
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> I waffle between Yes, and Yes with convincing. I'm trying it out now to see
> how I feel about it. I feel like we shouldn't extend python too much, but
> this syntax is very tempting.
>
BTW, at the upcoming pydata workshop:
http://pydatawo
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 1/26/12 12:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
>> rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
>> Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make S
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> Another option would be:
>
> [QQ: 1,2,3; 4,5,6]
QQ:1 is a slice...
> or, as Robert suggests:
>
> [1,2,3; 4,5,6, base_ring=QQ] -- but then it looks like base_ring=QQ is
> another element.
assignments aren't literals... but I don't like this
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 1/26/12 1:57 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to be able to specify a type. Perhaps
>>
>> R.[1,2,3;2,3,4] -> Matrix(R,[[1,2,3],[2,3,4]])
>>
>> or perhaps even
>>
>> R[1,2,3;2,3,4]
>
>
> Another option would be:
>
> [QQ: 1,2,3;
On 1/26/12 12:13 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matlab clone,
rather it is to add a missing feature to Sage.
Hi,
Earlier today I was arguing that we need to support Xcode 4.x, etc.,
in the context of the PARI bugs.
I'm sitting here with a grad student with a solid Mac running OS X
10.6.8, and trying to get XCode 3.x on it is HELL.
None of our Apple ID's work for the Developer network, etc. We can't
fin
On 1/26/12 2:04 PM, William Stein wrote:
[X] No, matrices over QQ are for sissies, real mathematicians work
over ZZ unless otherwise specified.
That would go great in our linear algebra article or in the Sage docs ;)
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.co
> Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for matrix construction in Sage?
>
> [x ] Yes, I love this syntax! It would be make life better for me and
> my students.
> Why?
This makes it easier to win over people used to Matlab.
>
> Should the default basering be more linear-algebra friendly? E.g. R
On 1/26/12 1:57 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
It would be nice to be able to specify a type. Perhaps
R.[1,2,3;2,3,4] -> Matrix(R,[[1,2,3],[2,3,4]])
or perhaps even
R[1,2,3;2,3,4]
Another option would be:
[QQ: 1,2,3; 4,5,6]
or, as Robert suggests:
[1,2,3; 4,5,6, base_ring=QQ] -- but then it lo
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
> rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
> Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matlab clone,
> rather it is to add a miss
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
> rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
> Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matlab clone,
> rather it is to add a miss
> Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for matrix construction in Sage?
[ X ] Yes, I love this syntax! It would be make life better for me and
my students.
[ ] I wouldn't oppose, but may require some convincing.
[ ] No, that's a horrible idea.
> Why?
Short, intuitive, clear, coincides with gp n
Hi Robert,
On 26 Jan., 19:13, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for matrix construction in Sage?
>
> [ ] Yes, I love this syntax! It would be make life better for me and
> my students.
[X ] I wouldn't oppose, but may require some convincing.
> [ ] No, that's a horribl
To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matlab clone,
rather it is to add a missing feature to Sage.
Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for ma
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:51 AM, daly wrote:
[...lots of axiom examples and Sage questions...]
Sage, like Axiom, distinguishes between Integers and Rationals with a
trivial denominator, has a strong notion of a basering (for matrices,
polynomials), etc. You may want to look up coercion and the p
E.g. Fedora only has librt.so and no librt.a. So even the best makefile
will not be able to statically link with librt in that case.
--
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
Fo
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 1/26/12 7:54 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
>>
>> 2012/1/26 Jason Grout:
>>>
>>> That's part of the problem pointed out in an earlier message---our RR
>>> matrices really are pretty bad for numerical things, but RDF matrices are
>>> the way to go (
On 1/26/12 7:54 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
2012/1/26 Jason Grout:
That's part of the problem pointed out in an earlier message---our RR
matrices really are pretty bad for numerical things, but RDF matrices are
the way to go (the RDF matrices use standard numerical algorithms for the
most part, wher
2012/1/26 Jason Grout :
> That's part of the problem pointed out in an earlier message---our RR
> matrices really are pretty bad for numerical things, but RDF matrices are
> the way to go (the RDF matrices use standard numerical algorithms for the
> most part, whereas RR matrices use naive algorith
See for instance
http://ask.sagemath.org/question/1102/using-r-in-sage-can-not-plot-errors-of-x11-and-png
I've had this problem giving talks to (otherwise friendly) R audiences
and had to sort of skirt the issue. Given Jason and Volker's work
tracking this down, I don't think it should be too ha
On 1/26/12 5:30 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
What would Matlab users think of having to learn the habit of putting
"." behind their integers in Sage, e.g.?
sage: matrix([[1.,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Real Field with 53 bits of precision
sage: matrix([[1/1,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Rational Field
This wou
> Copyright issue?
For 4 lines of code in a forum thread, given as an answer to a guy
asking "how to code a popcount efficiently" ?
If this can be a copyright issue, by itself it is sufficient to say
that we would be better without copyrights :-p
Nathann
--
To post to this group, send an email
Le 26/01/2012 12:33, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
And I did not write this popcount myself, I found it on the (many)
pages on which everybody contributes with his own version of that code
:-D
Copyright issue?
Snark on #sagemath
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
Helloo !!
> I'm sure this is configurable, and it should be configured, when building
> Sage.
Hmmm. That would be GREAT. Definitely worth asking the wise guys
working on Cython.
> And, calling a (very fast) function is faster than using your code, anyway,
> IMHO.
Nonono, I remember I re
What would Matlab users think of having to learn the habit of putting
"." behind their integers in Sage, e.g.?
sage: matrix([[1.,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Real Field with 53 bits of precision
sage: matrix([[1/1,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Rational Field
This would be a possible warning to engineers: "Ma
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:46:30 PM UTC+8, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > Actually, newer Intel and AMD processors (I guess, ARM too) have POPCNT
> > wired in, so __builtin_popcount(), which is a gcc function, will beat
> your
> > implementation, as time goes by.
>
> Yep but there's a functio
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 03:05 -0800, David Roe wrote:
> > So I am suggesting that a clean syntax is possible if
> > the base ring is associated with the target symbol, not
> > with the input tokens.
>
> Apprently in Axiom you can statically type variable names, whereas in
> Python a variable is dyna
Hi all!
On 26 Jan., 10:37, Marco Streng wrote:
> 2012/1/26 Dima Pasechnik :
>
> > No, that's not good.
>
> > Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
> > (as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
>
> How about [1,2,3;] for matrix([[1,2,3]])?
> This prob
> So I am suggesting that a clean syntax is possible if
> the base ring is associated with the target symbol, not
> with the input tokens.
Apprently in Axiom you can statically type variable names, whereas in
Python a variable is dynamically typed: you can't specify that a
should hold an Integer f
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 02:24 -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:16 AM, daly wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 02:06 -0800, David Roe wrote:
> >> > As for global defaults, it's nice for both examples and debugging for
> >> > there to be as little global state as possible, and s
Matlab users are spoiled, as everything is a matrix of floats there.
Do you know that 0==0.0 and 0==[0] in Matlab?
Going this way, we will end up renaming binomial() to nchoosek(), and
creating a Matlab clone :-)
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubsc
> Actually, newer Intel and AMD processors (I guess, ARM too) have POPCNT
> wired in, so __builtin_popcount(), which is a gcc function, will beat your
> implementation, as time goes by.
Yep but there's a function call "becase" it is a function, while the
current one is inlined. I really have no
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:59:39 PM UTC+8, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > So one quick test would be to use __builtin_popcount(i) and see if it
> makes
> > a difference...
>
> Yepyep It's commented in the code, actually. I used it on a
> machine which had the popcount instruction enable, b
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:16 AM, daly wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 02:06 -0800, David Roe wrote:
>> > As for global defaults, it's nice for both examples and debugging for
>> > there to be as little global state as possible, and someone who wants
>> > RDF for reals probably wants CDF for complex
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 02:06 -0800, David Roe wrote:
> > As for global defaults, it's nice for both examples and debugging for
> > there to be as little global state as possible, and someone who wants
> > RDF for reals probably wants CDF for complexes. The consistency
> > argument is a good one, but
> As for global defaults, it's nice for both examples and debugging for
> there to be as little global state as possible, and someone who wants
> RDF for reals probably wants CDF for complexes. The consistency
> argument is a good one, but changing matrix(...) would be much more
> invasive, and bot
> So one quick test would be to use __builtin_popcount(i) and see if it makes
> a difference...
Yepyep It's commented in the code, actually. I used it on a
machine which had the popcount instruction enable, but on others the
__builtin_popcount is slower that the current code. This being said,
Is the popcount() there even big-endian/little-endian safe?
It's not obvious. As well, it will blow on architectures that have
a different from x86 idea about the length of int...
So one quick test would be to use __builtin_popcount(i) and see if it
makes a difference...
--
To post to this g
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
> 2012/1/26 Dima Pasechnik :
>> No, that's not good.
>>
>> Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
>> (as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
>
> How about [1,2,3;] for matrix([[1,2,3]])?
> This pro
Python does (1,) but allows and encourages (1, 2) rather than (1, 2,), so
IMO we should do [1, 2;] but allow and encourage [1, 2; 3, 4] rather than
[1, 2; 3, 4;].
Great idea btw, I like this. This would make it as easy to enter matrices
quickly into Sage as it is in Mathematica, MATLAB, etc. I
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> then, for consistency, it should be then
> [1,2;3,4;], i.e. end each row with ;
It can be optional:
In [6]: (1,2,3)
Out[6]: (1, 2, 3)
In [7]: (1,2,3,)
Out[7]: (1, 2, 3)
--Mike
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@google
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:37:14 PM UTC+8, Marco Streng wrote:
>
> 2012/1/26 Dima Pasechnik :
> > No, that's not good.
> >
> > Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
> > (as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
>
> How about [1,2,3;] for matrix(
2012/1/26 Dima Pasechnik :
> No, that's not good.
>
> Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
> (as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
How about [1,2,3;] for matrix([[1,2,3]])?
This problem and solution are similar to (1,) for a 1-tuple in Python.
>
> I am trying to compile it with the --ensable-static to see whether it
> would solve the problem cheaply But God it is long O_O
sage: MixedIntegerLinearProgram(solver="Coin")
---
ImportError
No, that's not good.
Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
(as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
Dima
--
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..
> The cbc library is linked with librt if it is available. The problem is that
> any other library (like any Cython extension class) then also must
> explicitly link against librt.
I am trying to compile it with the --ensable-static to see whether it
would solve the problem cheaply But God it
The cbc library is linked with librt if it is available. The problem is
that any other library (like any Cython extension class) then also must
explicitly link against librt.
You can't do it by setting some CFLAGS and friends. Ideally configure would
have a switch to turn it off; since it does
On 01/26/12 05:56 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
Unfortunately you cannot delete attachments on trac. Just put at the bottom
of the ticket description a short description of which attachments are
relevant, leaving out the irrelevant or outdated patches, like this:
Apply:
1. [attachment:first_patch.ne
>> I would like to propose the addition of a matrix literal syntax, namely
>>
>> sage: [1, 2; 3, 4]
>> [1 2]
>> [3 4]
> +1
+1 from me as well
>
>> A second question, what of the basering?
>
> Consistency with "[Mm]atrix([[1,2],[3,4]])" would be most clear. So would
> you argue to change basering o
Oh, I understand, it was a mistake. Because the way I wanted to do it
the "configure" scripts plans for everything to be compiled with -lrt,
and I prevent that with this flag... What I need is a way to force
"configure" to understand that it should *NOT* use librt, or to make
it believe it actually
>> Unless there is any marked benefit to using the high-resolution timer its
>> probably best to just #define HAVE_CLOCK_GETTIME 1 in config.h after running
>> configure.
I thought I had found a nice way to do that. I updated the
spkg-install file with :
export CPPFLAGS="-DHAVE_CLOCK_GETTIME=0"
Op 26-01-2012 8:22, Robert Bradshaw schreef:
I would like to propose the addition of a matrix literal syntax, namely
sage: [1, 2; 3, 4]
[1 2]
[3 4]
+1
even gp has this
A second question, what of the basering?
Consistency with "[Mm]atrix([[1,2],[3,4]])" would be most clear. So
would you a
I would like to propose the addition of a matrix literal syntax, namely
sage: [1, 2; 3, 4]
[1 2]
[3 4]
sage: [1, 2; 3, 4] * [5, 6; 7, 8]
[19 22]
[43 50]
Currently one must write
sage: matrix([[1, 2], [3, 4]])
[1 2]
[3 4]
sage: matrix([[1, 2], [3, 4]]) * matrix([[5, 6], [7, 8]])
[19 22]
[43 50]
Hell !!!
HMmmm... Yep, those two patches are pretty new (though the first one was
partly there before, it mainly moves some methods into a new module). This
being said, the second patch has no reason to call the functions defined in
the first. Actually the second was applied
97 matches
Mail list logo
