On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:35 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
> wrote:
>
>> By design, the category of an object in Sage describes:
>>
>> (a) It's "operations" (additive structure, multiplicative
>> structure). This conditions what the morphisms are in the cate
Le 11/02/2013 22:57, William Stein a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Christian Kuper
wrote:
Hello Harald,
thanks for your quick reply
Honestly personal answer: no. But I'm happy to be proven wrong :-)
I would be greatly interested in your opinion why you think "no". Simulation
d
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:27:03PM +, Simon King wrote:
> In contrast to all other category containment tests,
> Fields().__contains__(P) does not only rely on the declared category of P, but
> it would call P.is_field(),
Just a quick note: the fact that P in Fields() triggers P.is_field()
is
On 2013-02-10, Nils Bruin wrote:
> The following came up on #14084 but it relates much more to the kinds
> of things happening on #13370.
>
> Since parents are unique in sage, so if you ask for a parent to be
> constructed, you really don't know what you get back. It might be a
> freshly produced
On 2013-02-11, mabshoff wrote:
> --=_Part_654_28116328.1360614120849
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 8, 2013 10:29:16 AM UTC+1, David Joyner wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Florent Hivert
>> >
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:
>
> If I were to do any work on Sage I would pick up where I left since in
> 2009 I actually did a port of Sage 4.0 to a mixed MSVC/MingW environment to
> the point where I could import libSingular and do GB computations. I was a
> 3.5 months never ending session of banging my head against my d
On Feb 11, 3:10 pm, Nils Bruin wrote:
Sorry! typo. The example should read:
> sage: QA.is_field()
> False
> sage: QB.is_field()
> True
> sage: QB in Fields()
> True
of course, QB is a field so QB.is_field() should return True. My
apologies.
--
You received this message because you are subscri
On 2013-02-11, Nils Bruin wrote:
> sage: QA.is_field()
> False
> sage: QB.is_field()
> False
> sage: QB in Fields()
> True
In contrast to all other category containment tests,
Fields().__contains__(P) does not only rely on the declared category of P, but
it would call P.is_field(), if P has not p
On Feb 11, 11:35 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> By design, the category of an object in Sage describes:
>
> (a) It's "operations" (additive structure, multiplicative
> structure). This conditions what the morphisms are in the category.
>
> (b) The properties of the operations that Sage is a
On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:22:00 PM UTC, mabshoff wrote:
> These days unfortunately there are components like libgap which make a
> port significantly more work and due to the way memory is managed in GAP,
> at least back in 2009, the only realistic option on Windows would be the 64
> bit p
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Christian Kuper
wrote:
> Hello Harald,
>
> thanks for your quick reply
>>
>> Honestly personal answer: no. But I'm happy to be proven wrong :-)
>
>
> I would be greatly interested in your opinion why you think "no". Simulation
> does play a big role when analysing
On Friday, February 8, 2013 10:29:16 AM UTC+1, David Joyner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Florent Hivert
> >
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:59:21PM -0500, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:46:24PM +, John Cremona wrote:
> >> > On 6 February 20
I think this could be valuable, but it is not clear to me what SimPy
can do. We definitely need more capability for simulation with
interactive controls in Sage.
If SimPy is all Tkinter-based, it might be hard to incorporate it into
the notebook. At the moment the most promising route forward th
Hi!
Let me transplant my answers on trac ...
By design, the category of an object in Sage describes:
(a) It's "operations" (additive structure, multiplicative
structure). This conditions what the morphisms are in the category.
(b) The properties of the operations that Sage is aware
On Feb 11, 3:16 am, Simon King wrote:
> It [method inheritance] is affected. There actually is an example in my
> thematic tutorial on
> coercion and categories (for elements, but it is the same for parents).
I find that worrying in the light of unique parents. It means that
when I construct a
Hello Harald,
thanks for your quick reply
> Honestly personal answer: no. But I'm happy to be proven wrong :-)
>
I would be greatly interested in your opinion why you think "no".
Simulation does play a big role when analysing systems (which I use Sage
for) and I personally like having the wh
In preparing for class, I wanted to show this page:
http://www.netlib.org/lapack/faq.html#_what_and_where_are_the_lapack_vendors_implementations
and was surprised Sage doesn't show up. Is that because we don't provide a
direct interface to LAPACK? I assume we use it not just through other
sof
We are now at MPIR 2.6.0, so it would be nice to know if this upgrade alone
fixes the problem.
On Monday, February 11, 2013 4:28:37 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
>
> See
> http://ask.sagemath.org/question/1713/error-installing-package-mpir-240p6
>
> Will this probably need an spkg upgrade to fix? I
See http://ask.sagemath.org/question/1713/error-installing-package-mpir-240p6
Will this probably need an spkg upgrade to fix? It's nice that people are
finding the answer on ask.sagemath, but...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
T
Hi!
On 2013-02-11, Nils Bruin wrote:
> The process of transplanting a discussion from a trac ticket (#14084
> in this case) to sage-devel is a bit painful.
Sorry that I posted to trac after you posted here.
>> Also note that changing the category of the ring has indirect
>> advantages: There ma
20 matches
Mail list logo
