On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Benjamin Jones
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> On 2012-06-30 16:57, Volker Braun wrote:
>>> There are still power outages all over the east coast after some
>>> thunderstorms. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back after the pow
Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> All of you who had trouble with building Sage from source inside a
> VirtualBox:
>
> please test new source tarball at
> http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-5.0.1.rc0/sage-5.0.1.rc0.tar
Now that I'm back in Singapore I've tested this with 5.0.1 in my
Virtua
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 11:26:54 UTC+8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:36:37 UTC+8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 09:56:04 UTC+8, Charles Bouillaguet wrote:
>>>
>>> > Mhh, why not? If A = LUP we just write AP^-1 = LU, hence for each LU
>>> w
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:36:37 UTC+8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 09:56:04 UTC+8, Charles Bouillaguet wrote:
>>
>> > Mhh, why not? If A = LUP we just write AP^-1 = LU, hence for each LU
>> we
>> > construct there are as many As as there are permutation matrices, or
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 09:56:04 UTC+8, Charles Bouillaguet wrote:
>
> > Mhh, why not? If A = LUP we just write AP^-1 = LU, hence for each LU we
> > construct there are as many As as there are permutation matrices, or am
> I
> > missing something (again :))?
>
> I am not sure that the LUP de
> Mhh, why not? If A = LUP we just write AP^-1 = LU, hence for each LU we
> construct there are as many As as there are permutation matrices, or am I
> missing something (again :))?
I am not sure that the LUP decomposition is unique (I understand that
the LU is). If A has more distinct LUP factor
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 07:46:48 UTC+8, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 03 Jul 2012, Simon King wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On 2012-07-02, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> > > Shouldn't both give the same distribution mod p? Since every
> non-singular
> > > matrix A has a LU decompositio
On Monday, 2 July 2012 14:39:33 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2012-06-30 16:57, Volker Braun wrote:
> > There are still power outages all over the east coast after some
> > thunderstorms. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back after the power
> > is switched back on ;-)
> And what if.
Hi,
On Tuesday 03 Jul 2012, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2012-07-02, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> > Shouldn't both give the same distribution mod p? Since every non-singular
> > matrix A has a LU decomposition we should be able to just sample L and U
> > separately to produce A?
>
> Sorry for my
Hi!
On 2012-07-02, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> Shouldn't both give the same distribution mod p? Since every non-singular
> matrix A has a LU decomposition we should be able to just sample L and U
> separately to produce A?
Sorry for my ignorance, but is it really the case that an LU
decomposition
Shouldn't both give the same distribution mod p? Since every non-singular
matrix A has a LU decomposition we should be able to just sample L and U
separately to produce A?
On Monday 02 Jul 2012, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> The question is what distribution one is aiming for. Is there
> something sp
The question is what distribution one is aiming for. Is there
something special about GL(n, F) that we're trying to achieve?
Otherwise, I think the generate-and-check, perhaps re-defining a
single random entry on failure, is an evener distribution.
- Robert
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Martin
We should be able to do even better, right?
Generate upper triangular + lower triangular matrix and do a product?
On Monday 02 Jul 2012, charles Bouillaguet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering why some of my code was Dawn Slow (tm), and I ended up
> being surprised to notice that it was spending a
This still needs review, see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12751
On 2012-06-18 15:46, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> There are still a few changes needed to finalize the support of
> GCC-4.7.x in Sage. These are:
>
> 1) Don't build GCC by default if gcc-4.7.x is detected (except for
> gcc-
One rarely-used branch in the sage-ptest code uses the shutil module
without importing it. This blocker ticket needs review:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13195
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
s
Hi,
I was wondering why some of my code was Dawn Slow (tm), and I ended up
being surprised to notice that it was spending all its time trying to
generate a random invertible matrix In particular, over finite
fields, GL(N, GF(q)).random_element() is MUCH MUCH MUCH slower than
the naive method t
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 6/30/12 11:57 PM, Simon King wrote:
>>
>> [X] Determine whether x is a string. If it is, then trace(x) traces
>> execution of code. If it isn't, try to return x.trace().
That's a clever compromise, but
> First, that is how it will work in t
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-06-30 16:57, Volker Braun wrote:
>> There are still power outages all over the east coast after some
>> thunderstorms. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back after the power
>> is switched back on ;-)
> And what if... there is nobod
On Monday, July 2, 2012 10:03:40 AM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote:
>
> sage: pari(3*i).erfc()
> -1.76710569338983 E-16 - 1629.86732385786*I
> sage: mpmath.erfc(3*i)
> mpc(real='1.0', imag='-1629.9946226015657')
> sage: 1-pari(3*i).erfc()
> 1.00 + 1629.86732385786*I
> sage: mpmath.erf(3*i)
> m
sage: pari(3*i).erfc()
-1.76710569338983 E-16 - 1629.86732385786*I
sage: mpmath.erfc(3*i)
mpc(real='1.0', imag='-1629.9946226015657')
sage: 1-pari(3*i).erfc()
1.00 + 1629.86732385786*I
sage: mpmath.erf(3*i)
mpc(real='0.0', imag='1629.9946226015657')
Now, in 5.1.beta6's gp I get
$ Down
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 5:29:43 AM UTC-4, Slumberland wrote:
>
> The grapher has been defined as an image compositor.
>
> Oops.
> :)
>
> Symptoms:
> -- Render an animated .gif to have an animated graph.
> -- show(A + B) ('plus'? That's a BLIT. Also, the syntax is
> inconsistent. It chang
2012/7/2 kcrisman
> There is certainly some inconsistency, but this one is unintentional
Sorry, I didn't know that. Thank you for linking the bug.
--
*Andrea Lazzarotto* - http://andrealazzarotto.com*
*
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe fr
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 5:47:16 AM UTC-4, Andrea Lazzarotto wrote:
>
> 2012/7/1 Slumberland
>
>>
>> -- all the parameters which (should) belong to the grapher are instead
>> duplicated in the various plot() methods. They overlap, and there are then
>> *additional* routines to sort out the ove
On 6/30/12 11:57 PM, Simon King wrote:
[X] Determine whether x is a string. If it is, then trace(x) traces
execution of code. If it isn't, try to return x.trace().
First, that is how it will work in the deprecation period. Secondly,
for the long term, my philosophical objection to that is tha
24 matches
Mail list logo
