[sage-devel] Re: ECL on Cygwin

2012-07-12 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On 2012-07-12, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > --=_Part_636_28379823.1342118065917 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I'm using the latest cygwin. > > For the record, the problematic file (ext/sockets.eclh) begins with (after > some defines): > #include > #include > and the error

[sage-devel] Re: Vote: should CHomP be a standard spkg?

2012-07-12 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On 2012-07-13, John H Palmieri wrote: > --=_Part_1075_13357397.1342147703730 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Right now CHomP (Computation Homology Project) is an optional spkg for Sage > (according to a vote in December 2010 > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/H

[sage-devel] Re: ECL on Cygwin

2012-07-12 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On 2012-07-12, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > --=_Part_556_27532648.1342120243856 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > For the record, removing the inclusion of select.h from sys_time.h let ECL > compile... although it is not a proper solution. > I'll try building Sage with this wor

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Vote: should CHomP be a standard spkg?

2012-07-12 Thread John H Palmieri
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:08:49 PM UTC-5, François wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:57:02 kcrisman wrote: > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:48:23 PM UTC-4, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > Right now CHomP (Computation Homology Project) is an optional spkg for > > > Sage (according to a vote i

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sagetex

2012-07-12 Thread Justin C. Walker
On Jul 12, 2012, at 19:51 , kcrisman wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:56 PM UTC-4, John H Palmieri wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:58:24 PM UTC-5, Justin C. Walker wrote: >>> >>> Hi, all, >>> >>> I started experimenting with SageTeX, but, having unbridled opti

Re: [sage-devel] Hoodies and other clothing with logo

2012-07-12 Thread François Bissey
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:08:22 kcrisman wrote: > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:05:06 PM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote: > >> - topaz: part of polymake. polymake is an experimental Sage package, > >> > >> which is currently broken. The new version of polymake insists that on > >> Mac > >> OS X, Fink is a pre

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Vote: should CHomP be a standard spkg?

2012-07-12 Thread François Bissey
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:57:02 kcrisman wrote: > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:48:23 PM UTC-4, John H Palmieri wrote: > > Right now CHomP (Computation Homology Project) is an optional spkg for > > Sage (according to a vote in December 2010 > > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/HLxXNpykXm8/

[sage-devel] Hoodies and other clothing with logo

2012-07-12 Thread kcrisman
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:05:06 PM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote: > > >> - topaz: part of polymake. polymake is an experimental Sage package, >> which is currently broken. The new version of polymake insists that on Mac >> OS X, Fink is a prerequisite, so this does not seem like a good option. >>

[sage-devel] Re: Vote: should CHomP be a standard spkg?

2012-07-12 Thread kcrisman
> > > - topaz: part of polymake. polymake is an experimental Sage package, > which is currently broken. The new version of polymake insists that on Mac > OS X, Fink is a prerequisite, so this does not seem like a good option. > (Maybe Fink isn't really necessary, but I don't want to figure it

[sage-devel] Re: Vote: should CHomP be a standard spkg?

2012-07-12 Thread kcrisman
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:48:23 PM UTC-4, John H Palmieri wrote: > > Right now CHomP (Computation Homology Project) is an optional spkg for > Sage (according to a vote in December 2010 > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/HLxXNpykXm8/discussion, > although the spkg never got move

[sage-devel] Re: Sagetex

2012-07-12 Thread kcrisman
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:56 PM UTC-4, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:58:24 PM UTC-5, Justin C. Walker wrote: >> >> Hi, all, >> >> I started experimenting with SageTeX, but, having unbridled optimism, I >> did this with a Beamer template. It turns out that t

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sagetex

2012-07-12 Thread Justin C. Walker
On Jul 12, 2012, at 19:35 , John H Palmieri wrote: > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:58:24 PM UTC-5, Justin C. Walker wrote: >> >> I started experimenting with SageTeX, but, having unbridled optimism, I >> did this with a Beamer template. It turns out that the two don't seem to >> mix. >> >>

[sage-devel] Vote: should CHomP be a standard spkg?

2012-07-12 Thread John H Palmieri
Right now CHomP (Computation Homology Project) is an optional spkg for Sage (according to a vote in December 2010 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/HLxXNpykXm8/discussion, although the spkg never got moved from the "experimental" directory to the "optional" directory). I propose maki

[sage-devel] Re: Sagetex

2012-07-12 Thread John H Palmieri
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:58:24 PM UTC-5, Justin C. Walker wrote: > > Hi, all, > > I started experimenting with SageTeX, but, having unbridled optimism, I > did this with a Beamer template. It turns out that the two don't seem to > mix. > > Has anyone had any luck using SageTeX in this wa

[sage-devel] Sagetex

2012-07-12 Thread Justin C. Walker
Hi, all, I started experimenting with SageTeX, but, having unbridled optimism, I did this with a Beamer template. It turns out that the two don't seem to mix. Has anyone had any luck using SageTeX in this way? I'm attaching two minimal examples. Tst1 is from a beamer template, and shows the k

[sage-devel] Sage-mode 0.8 now ready

2012-07-12 Thread Ivan Andrus
I have finally gotten sage-mode working (I think) with the new python.el which will be included in Emacs 24.2. For that reason I am ready to "release" it to a wider audience, in preparation for sage-mode becoming standard. My plans are that 0.8 become an optional package after some testing and

[sage-devel] sage 5.1 compilation problem (mpir-2.4.0.p5)

2012-07-12 Thread Jeremy Fehr
Trying to build sage 5.1 on Debian Wheezy i686, Intel Core Duo T2400 (32 bit). Relevant log files are attached. -- -- 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, v

[sage-devel] Re: ECL on Cygwin

2012-07-12 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:25:18 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > _WINSOCKAPI_ gets defined in h/ecl-cmp.h which prevents the definition of > fd_set in sys/types.h. > And that was defined for the following reason. http://ecls.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ecls/ecl;a=commit;h=2d63

[sage-devel] Re: ECL on Cygwin

2012-07-12 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:34:25 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > And in fact there is no trace of winsock[2].h anywhere. > _WINSOCKAPI_ gets defined in h/ecl-cmp.h which prevents the definition of fd_set in sys/types.h. -- -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@goog

[sage-devel] Re: reviewer needed for #13239: contract edges in graphs

2012-07-12 Thread mhampton
I reviewed this to the best of my ability, and gave it a positive review, but folks who care more about graphs might want to take a look. -Marshall On Jul 12, 11:30 am, Dan Drake wrote: > Hello, > > I'm at the Sage-combinat Days meeting at the IMA and I just helped a new > graph theory developer

[sage-devel] Re: ECL on Cygwin

2012-07-12 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
For the record, removing the inclusion of select.h from sys_time.h let ECL compile... although it is not a proper solution. I'll try building Sage with this workaround before finding a better solution. -- -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe fro

[sage-devel] Re: ECL on Cygwin

2012-07-12 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
I'm using the latest cygwin. For the record, the problematic file (ext/sockets.eclh) begins with (after some defines): #include #include and the error occurs with that second include. And in fact there is no trace of winsock[2].h anywhere. -- -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-

Re: [linbox-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Rigor of matrix rank over ZZ

2012-07-12 Thread William Stein
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:52 AM, B Saunders wrote: > Yes, LinBox integer matrix rank is Monte Carlo. I would say it is > rigorously Monte Carlo in that we have a published proof bounding the > probability of a wrong rank (as a function of matrix dimension and > entry sizes). The probability of

[sage-devel] reviewer needed for #13239: contract edges in graphs

2012-07-12 Thread Dan Drake
Hello, I'm at the Sage-combinat Days meeting at the IMA and I just helped a new graph theory developer submit a patch. Can someone who works on the graph theory stuff review it? It's a simple patch that adds a method for contracting edges, which is needed for computing Tutte polynomials. http://t

[sage-devel] Re: ECL on Cygwin

2012-07-12 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On 2012-07-12, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > --=_Part_1_7714631.1342080895004 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > which version of Cygwin are you working on? > Did you try compiling (standalone, not inside Sage) their latest version > (from their git repo, say): > http://ecls.sourcef

Re: [sage-devel] Rigor of matrix rank over ZZ

2012-07-12 Thread John Cremona
>> >> >> You can read the code as well as FJ did before posting, and I did before I >> replied -- I even quoted it : >> >> (1) toplevel description implies guaranteed results ; >> >> (2) most implementations are explictly documented as Monte Carlo, and indeed >> their code reduces the matrix modulo

Re: [sage-devel] Ubuntu installation instructions

2012-07-12 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2012-07-12 10:06, Jan Groenewald wrote: > Hi > > On 12 July 2012 09:45, Jeroen Demeyer > wrote: > > On 2012-07-11 17:09, Jan Groenewald wrote: > > The original question was whether PPA instructions should be given on > > Sagemath.org > I think we

[sage-devel] Re: ECL on Cygwin

2012-07-12 Thread Dima Pasechnik
which version of Cygwin are you working on? Did you try compiling (standalone, not inside Sage) their latest version (from their git repo, say): http://ecls.sourceforge.net/download.html Dima On Thursday, 12 July 2012 03:30:04 UTC+8, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > This looks related https://svn.bo

Re: [sage-devel] Ubuntu installation instructions

2012-07-12 Thread Jan Groenewald
Hi On 12 July 2012 09:45, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-07-11 17:09, Jan Groenewald wrote: > > The original question was whether PPA instructions should be given on > > Sagemath.org > I think we should first figure out the right workflow (for me this is > still: build from source on Launchpad)

Re: [sage-devel] Ubuntu installation instructions

2012-07-12 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2012-07-11 17:09, Jan Groenewald wrote: > The original question was whether PPA instructions should be given on > Sagemath.org I think we should first figure out the right workflow (for me this is still: build from source on Launchpad), then add instructions. -- -- To post to this group, send

Re: [sage-devel] Ubuntu installation instructions

2012-07-12 Thread Jan Groenewald
Hi On 11 July 2012 15:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > We would automatically support all systems that Launchpad supports (are > there more versions/architectures of Ubuntu on Launchpad than currently > on the Sage buildbot?) > Just a note on the architectures: i386, amd64, armel, powerpc https://h