Le 12/11/2013 22:12, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
> Writing code that works against, for example, multiple versions of
> Python takes extra care, as does testing it. Expand this to many
> different libraries and one has a full cross product of possible
> failure modes. Couple that with the (like it or
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Abdó Roig-Maranges
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> mich...@orlitzky.com writes:
>
>> * Bundling libraries are terrible for security. I should be able to
>> open a PNG in code that I myself wrote, without worrying about a
>> buffer overflow. My distro patches these hol
Le 12/11/2013 12:33, Volker Braun a écrit :
> On Monday, November 11, 2013 11:55:56 PM UTC-8, Snark wrote:
>
> example: disabling threading in ecl
>
>
> Perhaps the scope of the Sage project is different from that of an
> embedded Lisp interpreter?
My point was:
(1) sage uses ECL for some
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Abdó Roig-Maranges
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> mich...@orlitzky.com writes:
>
>> * Bundling libraries are terrible for security. I should be able to
>> open a PNG in code that I myself wrote, without worrying about a
>> buffer overflow. My distro patches these hol
Hi
mich...@orlitzky.com writes:
> * Bundling libraries are terrible for security. I should be able to
> open a PNG in code that I myself wrote, without worrying about a
> buffer overflow. My distro patches these holes immediately. Sage
> doesn't, there's just not enough manpower.
>
On 11/12/2013 07:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Yes, yes, and yes. But there's more:
Oh... I only wondered why Sage from github wants to install its own git.
But this thread seems to develop into a discussion of some people that
like a monolithic we-redo-all-ourselves sage and some that like mor
On 11/12/2013 12:29 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> This is maddening.
>
> Why is this so maddening? Are you out of room on your hard drive? It
> took too long to build? It offends your sense of aesthetics?
Yes, yes, and yes. But there's more:
* Bundling libraries are terrible for security. I sh
>As I understand it, we want to move Cartesian products over to the
> category framework, but we will need #10963 in before we can really think
> about doing this. Although I'm not quite sure they are of the "should be
> removed" variety.
Oh O_o
Then I must have misunderstood something, sorry
>
> - "G.CartesianProduct" and "CartesianProduct" are supposedly the same
> function, and "should be removed" (Combinat-Style) if I got it right. I
> don't know when, nor who is suppoed to do it. I can't, I have no
> understanding of this code, and I try to keep my interactions with
> Combinat
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le 11/11/2013 20:45, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:09:54 AM UTC-8, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
But I think even if I send that log, the bug is rather
A status of the "bugs" reported in the first message :
- I did not know at first how to create Z/nZ in Sage : #15369 adds
groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic which is equal to Integers (or IntegerModRing).
So the void is filled, and Rob's implementation can replace it eventually.
- "Integers(5) in Groups"
Oops. This email was send too early. I wanted to add that the doctests I
read in your patch make it look a bit like the current AdditiveAbelianGroup
and IntegerModRing from outside, aand that I am not familiar enough
with the current code and your patch's code to notice the internal
differences
On Monday, November 11, 2013 11:55:56 PM UTC-8, Snark wrote:
>
> example: disabling threading in ecl
Perhaps the scope of the Sage project is different from that of an embedded
Lisp interpreter?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
T
Hellooo !!
> I've been to hell and back. The situation is as bad as it sounds.
O_O_O_O_O_O_O;;
> #9773 builds on William's finitely-generated free-module-over-PID code to
> implement additive and multiplicative finitely generated groups in a unified
> and extendable way.
That is not a bug, since v is an eigenvector iff -v is, even if you
want it normalised. If you mind whether some entries are positive,
just test and negate if necessary.
John
On 12 November 2013 09:41, Evans Doe Ocansey wrote:
> Hi
>
> We're getting different results for an eigenvector in Sage
Hi
We're getting different results for an eigenvector in Sage 5.11 and Sage
5.12. We think 5.11 is the correct answer and 5.12 has flipped the values
to negative.
sage@hummingbird-lan:~$ cat eigenbug.sage
A=matrix(RDF,[[0, 1/2, 1/3, 0, 0], \
[1/2, 0, 0, 1/3, 0], \
[1/2
16 matches
Mail list logo
