[sage-devel] new Xcode (OS X) and singular

I upgraded to the latest version of Xcode on OS X, and now singular won't build anymore. I've tried on machines running both OS X 10.8 and 10.9. Log file: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/palmieri/misc/singular.log Any ideas for how to fix it? -- John -- You received this message because

Re: [sage-devel] Re: How to define a new ring class ? [We need a class representing genuine real field]

Hi, On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:29:47PM -0700, mmarco wrote: > RR if you don't care about the lack of exactness > QQ or some extension (like AA) if you want exactness but don't mind the > lack of transcendentals > SR if you want to allow arbitrary expressions, with the problem of speed > and mayb

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 05:24:08PM +, Simon King wrote: > OK. So, Cs().A?? yields the specification and Cs.A?? the implementation. Yes, though to get the implementation, it is preferable to use ``Cs().A()?``: it works uniformly, independently of whether this category is implemented in Cs.A or

[sage-devel] Re: Building Sage with Cygwin 32 bit

Yep the admin thing did it, successfully installed gf2x. Don't know why I wasn't running cygwin as admin the entire time But now I got an error on Pillows which I understand to be an image manipulation liubrary for python: /home/evan.oman/sage-6.1/local/var/tmp/sage/build/freetype-2.5.2.p0/

[sage-devel] Re: Building Sage with Cygwin 32 bit

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:08:32 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On 2014-03-12, Evan Oman > wrote: > > False alarm, I let it sit overnight and it appeared to pass after about > 6 > > hours of running. > > > > However, no surprise, another package halted the build with the error: >

Re: [sage-devel] Nasty NTL bug

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:20:44 PM UTC+1, David Roe wrote: > > That ticket is currently marked as "needs work." Should it be "needs > review?" > David > > Yes, it needs review, I forgot to switch the status back after fixing my screw up between two branches. Sorry about that. -- You rece

[sage-devel] Re: Building Sage with Cygwin 32 bit

On 2014-03-12, Evan Oman wrote: > False alarm, I let it sit overnight and it appeared to pass after about 6 > hours of running. > > However, no surprise, another package halted the build with the error: > > cat ../gf2x/gf2x-thresholds.h > tuned_thresholds.h > ./update-thresholds -o tuned_thresh

[sage-devel] Re: Building Sage with Cygwin 32 bit

False alarm, I let it sit overnight and it appeared to pass after about 6 hours of running. However, no surprise, another package halted the build with the error: cat ../gf2x/gf2x-thresholds.h > tuned_thresholds.h ./update-thresholds -o tuned_thresholds.h < tunetoom.res /bin/sh: ./update-thres

[sage-devel] Re: How to define a new ring class ?

Since the ring you want will be an algebra over the reals, the best fit for base ring would be the reals. Now, since it is impossible to represent the real field in practice, there are different possible solutions in sage: RR if you don't care about the lack of exactness QQ or some extension (l

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Interactive plots for Sage Notebook

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:37 AM, kcrisman wrote: > - one always needs the right confluence of time, interest, and expertise. I am not sure about expertise (has good knowledge of technologies involved and a will to learn whatever it requires) but I have interest (being a maths teacher myself) and

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:21:19 PM UTC-4, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:36:01AM -0700, Niles Johnson wrote: > > > After scanning the ticket discussion and documentation, I > >think the purpose is to provide some way of mixing in some (but > >not all) met

[sage-devel] Re: How to define a new ring class ?

Thanks for your answer and suggestions. Best wishes, Eric. Le mercredi 12 mars 2014 17:55:46 UTC+1, Nils Bruin a écrit : > > On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 6:41:07 AM UTC-7, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: >> >> The issue here is that CommutativeRing.__init__ requires the argument >> "base_ring" and in

Re: [sage-devel] Nasty NTL bug

That ticket is currently marked as "needs work." Should it be "needs review?" David On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > Anyone wants to review a fix for a long standing nasty bug? > http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9524 > > The current solution is maybe not optimal, but a

[sage-devel] PLoS and OSS and bioscience, e.g.

This may not be news to some of you, but is encouraging: http://www.openscience.org/blog/?p=707 If anyone here knows any computational biologists (I know some of you do/are), http://www.open-bio.org/wiki/BOSC_2014 is their conference in connection with a big bioinformatics conference in Boston.

[sage-devel] Re: How to define a new ring class ?

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 6:41:07 AM UTC-7, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > > The issue here is that CommutativeRing.__init__ requires the argument > "base_ring" and in the present context, I don't know what to put here: the > ring C^oo(N) does not depend upon any other ring. Shall I put self, i.e.

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions

Hi Simon! On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 09:36:02PM +, Simon King wrote: > In what location would you put the specification of an axiom and in what > location would you put the documentation of a concrete implementation of > the specified axiom, when axioms are lists of strings? Just as a ti

Re: [sage-devel] How to define a new ring class ?

Thanks for your answer Vincent. I fully agree that having the field of real numbers in Sage would be nice ! Regards, Eric. Le mercredi 12 mars 2014 15:41:40 UTC+1, vdelecroix a écrit : > > Hi Eric, > > My first guess would be to modify the initialization of > CommutativeRing to authorize Non

Re: [sage-devel] How to define a new ring class ?

Le mercredi 12 mars 2014 15:57:00 UTC+1, Nicolas M. Thiéry a écrit : > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 06:41:07AM -0700, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > >In order to treat tensor fields on a parallelizable domain N of some > >smooth manifold as elements of a free module (cf. #15916 and this > post

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions

Preliminary points: 1) It's unreasonable to always ask reviewers to implement their ideas. For instance, sometimes they may find a problem but not be sufficiently expert to implement it; that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Of course, then other reviewers may decide the critique is too tr

Re: [sage-devel] How to define a new ring class ?

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 06:41:07AM -0700, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: >In order to treat tensor fields on a parallelizable domain N of some >smooth manifold as elements of a free module (cf. #15916 and this post), >one has first to introduce the commutative ring C^oo(N) of smooth >funct

Re: [sage-devel] How to define a new ring class ?

Hi Eric, My first guess would be to modify the initialization of CommutativeRing to authorize None as a valid input for base_ring. Now, the base_ring should be the ring with which you will describe your functions. As functions are defined through coordinates in charts, a natural candidate for the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: 2d interactive graphs

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:35:47 PM UTC-4, john_perry_usm wrote: > > On the other hand, a student could combine the two ideas, or work on the > interactive plots within the cloud, so as to prepare for a future move to a > "personal" version. (Hint to students who read this.) > >> >> This see

[sage-devel] How to define a new ring class ?

Hi, In order to treat tensor fields on a parallelizable domain N of some smooth manifold as elements of a free module (cf. #15916and this post ), one has first to introduce the commutative ri

[sage-devel] Re: canonical review/upgrade procedure

Hi Volker, On 2014-03-12, Volker Braun wrote: >> However, two long-time developers have now asked why I do this, and one >> suggested to use a branch under public/, but I tried that and I can push >> that branch to trac but it's not visible in the ticket. >> > > You can always manually set the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: canonical review/upgrade procedure

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Volker Braun wrote: > On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:52:06 AM UTC+1, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > > > Hello, I'm the annoying person digging up old tickets. > > > > Which is much appreciated! +1. Many thanks for finally getting all those symbolics tickets me

[sage-devel] Re: canonical review/upgrade procedure

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:52:06 AM UTC+1, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > Hello, I'm the annoying person digging up old tickets. > Which is much appreciated! > It seems I fail to understand the collaboration process. When I create a > local branch by merging a ticket into my newest develop and f

[sage-devel] Re: canonical review/upgrade procedure

Hi! On 2014-03-12, Ralf Stephan wrote: > ...After you have done that, you can upload your changes back to trac: > > [user@localhost]$ sage -dev commit > [user@localhost]$ sage -dev push > > This will update the ticket to now point to your branch, including your=20 > changes. > ... > However, two

[sage-devel] canonical review/upgrade procedure

Hello, I'm the annoying person digging up old tickets. It seems I fail to understand the collaboration process. When I create a local branch by merging a ticket into my newest develop and fiddling with that, I cannot by design push any commit to the author's branch on trac. I understand this is

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions

Thanks for the very thoughtful and encouraging comments. A big hurdle to starting any actual work on this has always been to see how well received the category framework would be. Florian is also struggling with some issues of canonicity of the definitions, so your insights might be helpful to hi

[sage-devel] Re: Building Sage with Cygwin 32 bit

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:10:40 AM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:07:38 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> On 2014-03-12, Evan Oman wrote: >> > Hmm, it is just sitting there on that line again, is it expecting >> input? It >> > seems to be pas

[sage-devel] Re: Building Sage with Cygwin 32 bit

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:07:38 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On 2014-03-12, Evan Oman > wrote: > > Hmm, it is just sitting there on that line again, is it expecting input? > It > > seems to be passing all of the tests. > > you might instead just install the relevant Cygwin libs,

[sage-devel] Re: Building Sage with Cygwin 32 bit

On 2014-03-12, Evan Oman wrote: > Hmm, it is just sitting there on that line again, is it expecting input? It > seems to be passing all of the tests. you might instead just install the relevant Cygwin libs, and use them, instead of building Altas. See SAGE_ATLAS_LIB in http://www.sagemath.org/do

[sage-devel] Nasty NTL bug

Anyone wants to review a fix for a long standing nasty bug? http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9524 The current solution is maybe not optimal, but a more proper solution would be too invasive IMHO. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To

[sage-devel] Re: Building Sage with Cygwin 32 bit

Tuning ATLAS is slow. On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:19:43 AM UTC+1, Evan Oman wrote: > > Hmm, it is just sitting there on that line again, is it expecting input? > It seems to be passing all of the tests. > > On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:08:07 PM UTC-5, Evan Oman wrote: >> >> Awesome, installin