On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:50:43AM +0900, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 at 04:19PM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> > Hi Sage Developers (mainly in the US),
> >
> > If you really wish you could run an awesome Sage Days in the next
> > year, but can't quite figure out where to get funding, wr
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 at 10:40PM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> That's a great idea. Dan -- could you take charge of organizing
> something like this, in the next year?
I suspected I might be volunteering. :) Sure, I'll do it.
Dan
--
--- Dan Drake
- http://mathsci.kaist.ac.kr/~drake
---
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 at 04:19PM -0700, William Stein wrote:
>> Hi Sage Developers (mainly in the US),
>>
>> If you really wish you could run an awesome Sage Days in the next
>> year, but can't quite figure out where to get funding, write to me.
>
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 at 04:19PM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> Hi Sage Developers (mainly in the US),
>
> If you really wish you could run an awesome Sage Days in the next
> year, but can't quite figure out where to get funding, write to me.
I dunno if this would be an "awesome" Sage Days, or if I
Here's another worrying behaviour:
sage: solve(log(x) == 0.50001, x)
[x == sqrt(e)]
On Monday, 11 June 2012 17:53:17 UTC-7, Eviatar wrote:
>
> It seems Maxima does this by default. Any way to disable it?
>
> On Monday, 11 June 2012 17:47:09 UTC-7, Eviatar wrote:
>>
It seems Maxima does this by default. Any way to disable it?
On Monday, 11 June 2012 17:47:09 UTC-7, Eviatar wrote:
>
> solve has inconsistent behaviour when using exact numerical
> representations of numbers.
>
> For example:
>
> sage: solve(sin(x) == 0.5, x)
> [x == 1/6*pi]
> sage: arcsin(0.5)
solve has inconsistent behaviour when using exact numerical representations
of numbers.
For example:
sage: solve(sin(x) == 0.5, x)
[x == 1/6*pi]
sage: arcsin(0.5)
0.523598775598299
sage: solve(log(x) == 0.5, x)
[x == sqrt(e)]
sage: e^0.5
1.64872127070013
Shouldn't this be consistent? It seems
Looks much better! I have no problems with it requiring the extra click,
assuming it generates the still image fairly quickly. Is the viewing angle
for the still customizable? Will it still behave the old way in the
terminal?
On Monday, 11 June 2012 12:36:24 UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
> At #12299
Hi Sage Developers (mainly in the US),
If you really wish you could run an awesome Sage Days in the next
year, but can't quite figure out where to get funding, write to me.
-- William
--
William Stein
Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--
To post to this grou
We have objects which conveniently organise examples of certain (named)
mathematical objects, such as graphs, digraphs and posets
(and others?). These also help keep the global namespace a little
cleaner. I'd like to do the same thing with groups.
Comments are welcome as I work on this throu
On 6/11/12 12:34 PM, Michele wrote:
Hi,
at page 120-7 of the pdf the example of Elementary matrix
"elementary_matrix(QQ, row1=3, scale=-2)" misses the matrix size.
Thanks for the beautiful work,
Thanks! I've corrected it in our source.
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-
On 6/11/12 10:02 AM, William Stein wrote:
I guess the new trac_number field will have to default to None, unless
we want to raise a deprecation warning whenever deprecation() is only
called with two arguments...infiinte loop?!
I count about 132 times where deprecation is imported and about 70
t
On 6/11/12 10:02 AM, William Stein wrote:
I would just suggest:
deprecation(msg,trac_number)
where both arguments are mandatory. Once this code is in Sage, one
can deduce every possible thing discussed above in this thread from
the trac number. The deprecation warning can produce the UR
Even in the current implementation you need to press a mouse button before
you can drag the view around. So I don't quite understand what is different
in the new jmol. Can you elaborate on that?
What should be avoided is that you first have to press&release mouse button
before you can press aga
At #12299 there is a really nice update to the Jmol interface which is
being reviewed. It makes it very easy to do (among other things)
Change colors on plots, use axes, etc. on the fly
Do things to just one or two of multiple plotted objects in a graphic (like
showing mesh, color)
Export to so
Thanks Doug. I hadn't realized that the output of mod(m,n) is in the
integers mod n.
On Monday, June 11, 2012 8:26:34 AM UTC-6, D. S. McNeil wrote:
>
> > So is this a bug, or is there some subtle aspect of the set { ... }
> > constuction that I'm misusing?
>
> Oy, that's cute! The second matr
Hi,
at page 120-7 of the pdf the example of Elementary matrix
"elementary_matrix(QQ, row1=3, scale=-2)" misses the matrix size.
Thanks for the beautiful work,
Michele
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 5:46:50 AM UTC+2, jason wrote:
>
> On 6/3/12 1:20 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> >
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:54 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> On 11 June 2012 03:38, William Stein wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
>>> Keeping the deprecation wiki, trac, and the Sage library in sync seems
>>> hopeless. How about we
>>>
>>> a) add the ticket where it was
I would use (j,(j+1)%5) instead below.
John
On 11 June 2012 15:26, D. S. McNeil wrote:
> matrix(QuadraticField(2),5,{(j,int(mod(j+1,5))):1 for j in range(5)})
> Doug
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
Hey Charles, (CC: sage-devel),
On Monday 11 Jun 2012, you wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I have a few SAGE-related questions for you.
>
> This small patch (against sage 5.0) will make the variety() function
> work on ideals of BooleanPolynomials. It essentially adds a few basic
> functions that were mi
> So is this a bug, or is there some subtle aspect of the set { ... }
> constuction that I'm misusing?
Oy, that's cute! The second matrix index lives in Zmod(5), and behaves as such:
sage: wA = matrix(QuadraticField(2),5,{(j,mod(j+1,5)):1 for j in range(5)})
sage: wA.dict()
{(0, 1): 1, (1, 2): 1
Update, we are down to these doctest failures:
1) File
"/opt/sage-5.0-linbox/devel/sage/sage/tests/french_book/numbertheory.py",
line 43:
sage: [r for r in R]
Expected:
[0, 2*x, x + 1, x + 2, 2, x, 2*x + 2, 2*x + 1, 1]
Got:
[0, x, x + 1, 2*x + 1, 2, 2*x, 2*x + 2, x + 2, 1]
This is ea
Maybe I'm the hopeless case, but manually updating the wiki to be in sync
isn't what I like to spend my time on :-)
On Monday, June 11, 2012 4:13:13 AM UTC+1, Keshav Kini wrote:
>
> Volker Braun writes:
>
> > Keeping the deprecation wiki, trac, and the Sage library in sync seems
> > hopeless
On 11 June 2012 03:38, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
>> Keeping the deprecation wiki, trac, and the Sage library in sync seems
>> hopeless. How about we
>>
>> a) add the ticket where it was introduced as an argument to the
>> deprecation(msg, sage_ver
Hi,
In Sage 5.0, I'm getting the following strange behavior with sparse
matrices. As they should, the following two methods produce the same
cyclic permutation matrix:
sage> A = matrix(QQ,5,{(j,mod(j+1,5)):1 for j in range(5)}); A
[0 1 0 0 0]
[0 0 1 0 0]
[0 0 0 1 0]
[0 0 0 0 1]
[1 0 0 0 0]
sage
25 matches
Mail list logo
