This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14277
On 15 March 2013 08:36, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 2013-03-15, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > sage: bool(f == g)
> > True
> > sage: bool([f] == [g])
> > True
> > sage: bool(matrix([f]) == matrix([g]))
> > False
>
Hi Michael,
On 2013-03-15, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> sage: bool(f == g)
> True
> sage: bool([f] == [g])
> True
> sage: bool(matrix([f]) == matrix([g]))
> False
Ah, I missed that the coefficients do evaluate equal. In this case, I
agree it is a bug.
Cheers,
Simon
--
You received th
>>
> >> That is not good. Worth a ticket?
> >
> > I don't think so. I guess there is a good reason not to simplify
> > symbolic expressions by default.
>
> I disagree; I'd create one even if nobody wants to fix it at the moment.
> The problem here isn't about simplification -- equal expressions bec
On 03/14/2013 03:34 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 2013-03-14, Jan Groenewald wrote:
>> --e89a8f83aa332c3afc04d7e540f8
>> No, the core example is inside a matrix
>
> I don't understand what you mean by this.
>
>> A==B
>> False
>> A.simplify_rational()==B
>> True
>>
>> That is not good.
I can't imagine that anyone is using FastHashable_class, except for
> CategorySingleton. Nevertheless, Travis insists that we should keep
> FastHashable_class available in sage.categories.category_singleton, with
> a deprecation warning.
>
> But how? Is there a standard way to deprecate an import l
Hi Jan,
On 2013-03-14, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> --e89a8f83aa332c3afc04d7e540f8
> No, the core example is inside a matrix
I don't understand what you mean by this.
> A==B
> False
> A.simplify_rational()==B
> True
>
> That is not good. Worth a ticket?
I don't think so. I guess there is a good rea
On 14 March 2013 16:40, leif wrote:
> John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> On 14 March 2013 13:42, leif wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just noticed there are still subtle issues with GCC 4.7.x on Solaris (due
>>> to
>>> its math headers).
>>>
>>> Singular 3-1-5.p4 doesn't yet build because of these; I'll see whethe
Hi
No, the core example is inside a matrix
A==B
False
A.simplify_rational()==B
True
That is not good. Worth a ticket?
Regards,
Jan
On 12 March 2013 18:17, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 2013-03-12, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> > sage: A=matrix([(x+1)*(x-1)]); B=matrix([x^2-1]);
> > sage: A
John Cremona wrote:
On 14 March 2013 13:42, leif wrote:
Just noticed there are still subtle issues with GCC 4.7.x on Solaris (due to
its math headers).
Singular 3-1-5.p4 doesn't yet build because of these; I'll see whether there
are more instances (i.e., spkgs) later...
(We already fixed FL
On Mar 8, 11:46 am, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:16:30 AM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > How does the gcc-4.7 spkg do on various Mac systems?
>
> On OS X 10.8.2: I built Sage 5.8.beta3 + the gcc 4.7.2 spkg, and all tests
> passed (make ptestlong). On another 10.8.2 machine
Make a database_foobar.spkg for your tables.
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:32:57 AM UTC-4, Christian Stump wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I wonder if it is reasonable to add files containing precomputed data
> to a patch. In our case, we are talking about 0.5mb of exceptional
> mutation classes o
No problem. I know how hard writing a bug report can be. I'm just glad it is
useful for people. Now if I could only get someone to review it… :-)
-Ivan
On Mar 13, 2013, at 2:28 AM, martin wrote:
> Hi Ivan!
>
> I'd just like to send you a big THANK YOU for fixing the emacs mode with 5.7.
Hi there,
I wonder if it is reasonable to add files containing precomputed data
to a patch. In our case, we are talking about 0.5mb of exceptional
mutation classes of clusters of Kac-Moody type. What would then be the
way to get these files into some subfolder of the data folder, or
where should s
On 14 March 2013 13:42, leif wrote:
>
>
> Just noticed there are still subtle issues with GCC 4.7.x on Solaris (due to
> its math headers).
>
> Singular 3-1-5.p4 doesn't yet build because of these; I'll see whether there
> are more instances (i.e., spkgs) later...
>
> (We already fixed FLINTQS and
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
The Cygwin folks have an issue that GCC-4.6.3 doesn't compile ECL
properly due to a GCC bug
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52061).
Since this problem doesn't seem to occur with GCC-4.7.2, I would propose
to upgrade Sage's GCC to version 4.7.2. There already ex
15 matches
Mail list logo
