On Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:38:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> This isn't about
> correctness or performance or sufficient testing, it's a question of
> aesthetics, right?
There are performance issues actually, but probably ones that can be dealt
with as long as we make sure that the
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
> Dear Sage developers,
>
> This is a call for vote about the ticket:
>
> #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions [1]
>
> Sorry this post is long; it's trying to give a fair summary of the
> huge discussion on [1]. Here
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:35:25AM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
>>IMHO the contained-class makes it clear what the base category is, but not
>>what the axiom is. For example:
>>class Cs(Category):
>>class Finite(Category
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 5:10:53 PM UTC-4, Thierry
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>
> This is not about floating-point arithmetic nor evaluation, but about a
> common parent with some semantics in it.
Its fine to strive for generality, but I don't think its a good idea to
have something par
I tried the autogen idea with my virtual Ubuntu 12.04, ran the autogen.sh,
retared it, and tried reinstalling but with no avail. Here was the end of
the make output:
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
error: command 'gcc' failed with exit status 1
Error building / installing Pillow
real
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:08:05PM +0100, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
[...]
> I would advocate that RLF is a very good approximation of what should
> be RR. Perhaps one good direction to take is to try to make RLF
> smarter and contains all constants from pi to cos(42^e).
A generalisation of RLF coul
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 01:32:10PM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:45:57 PM UTC-4, Thierry
> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
> >
> > - create RSF (for "real symbolic field") to isolate pi and sqrt(2) from
> > cos(x) in the symbolic ring.
>
> Thats essentially what RL
2014-03-13 21:32 UTC+01:00, Volker Braun :
> On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:45:57 PM UTC-4, Thierry
> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>>
>> - create RSF (for "real symbolic field") to isolate pi and sqrt(2) from
>> cos(x) in the symbolic ring.
>>
>
> Thats essentially what RLF does.
>
Nope, pi bel
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:45:57 PM UTC-4, Thierry
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>
> - create RSF (for "real symbolic field") to isolate pi and sqrt(2) from
> cos(x) in the symbolic ring.
>
Thats essentially what RLF does.
> - re-create RR as an "overlay field" over the different repre
We restored the prereq tests, so that is probably the change. You can set
SAGE_PORT=yes and see how far you get...
IMHO we should just scrub fink/macports/... from the paths. If there is any
Sage package that still picks them up then that package should be fixed.
But we'd need a buildbot with a
>
>
> configure: error: "found Fink in /sw/bin/fink. Either:
> (1) rename /opt/local and /sw, or
> (2) change PATH and DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH
> (Once Sage is built, you can restore them.)
> If you would like to try to build Sage anyway (to help porting),
> export the variable 'SAGE_PORT' to someth
Hi!
I keep getting an error building Sage (as was reported earlier):
configure: needed to build Sage, which is GCC version 4.0.1
checking for sqrt in -lm... yes
***
***
You are using Xcode versio
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:04:47 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> 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.l
This might just be another issue like in
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15677
Or the order in which arguments are fed to libtool: "-lz -lbz2
-L/home/evan.oman/sage-6.1/local/lib -lpng12 -no-undefined".
Whatsoever, it seems freetype decided not to find the bz2 lib and only
built a static archive
Hi Martin,
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:56:41 +
Martin Albrecht wrote:
> what happened to the Sage 2012 GSoC project on lattices described
> here:
>
>http://gsoc-sage-lattices.blogspot.co.uk/
>
> It doesn't seem to have been merged (?) I could use it to give my
> discrete Gaussian sampler ov
Hi all,
what happened to the Sage 2012 GSoC project on lattices described here:
http://gsoc-sage-lattices.blogspot.co.uk/
It doesn't seem to have been merged (?) I could use it to give my discrete
Gaussian sampler over lattices code a home.
Cheers,
Martin
--
You received this message bec
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 01:02:09PM +0100, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> Nope, too confusing... the bars in QQbar and RRbar have two different
> meanings.
Well, i agree that QQ.bar() and RR.bar() will be confusing, because they
do not correspond to the same operations (algebraic_closure, vs 2-point
c
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:59:28PM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> > These examples are great ! It would be more natural to have
> > sage: Infinity in RFF and NaN in RFF # real floating field
> > True
> > sage: Infinity in RR and NaN in RR # real numbers
> > False
i've been waching discussions
2014-03-13 12:59 UTC+01:00, Thierry :
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:07:23AM +0100, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
>> 2014-03-13 9:28 UTC+01:00, Marc Mezzarobba :
>> > Thierry wrote:
>> >> - rename RR as RFF (for "real floating field"), so that this
>> >> representation is not preferred than the others (es
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:07:23AM +0100, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> 2014-03-13 9:28 UTC+01:00, Marc Mezzarobba :
> > Thierry wrote:
> >> - rename RR as RFF (for "real floating field"), so that this
> >> representation is not preferred than the others (especially RDF which
> >> is faster and allows
The problem is that you cannot know if a certain expression involving pi, e
and cos(3/4) is zero or not (well, you can determine that it is not zero,
if a numerical approximation is not, but a zero numerical aproximation
doesn't imply the expression to be zero). That means that, for instance,
y
2014-03-13 9:28 UTC+01:00, Marc Mezzarobba :
> Thierry wrote:
>> - rename RR as RFF (for "real floating field"), so that this
>> representation is not preferred than the others (especially RDF which
>> is faster and allows using more libraries, with the same 53 bits of
>> precision). The current na
Salut Thierry,
I did not see your post before posting mine ! I mostly agreed but I
would love to have something better. There are two kinds of
approximation that one can have when dealing with computations :
- approximate operations +, -, x, / (that allows for example to deal
with a finite subset
Thierry wrote:
> - rename RR as RFF (for "real floating field"), so that this
> representation is not preferred than the others (especially RDF which
> is faster and allows using more libraries, with the same 53 bits of
> precision). The current name RR suggests it is the right default
> choice.
Y
I do not agree with Miguel: it makes sense to have a Parent modeling
the set of all real numbers (even if it has no element). And the
natural name for it would be RR.
Now, concerning concrete computation, what you can do is either :
- use floating points (ie approximate operations +, x, -, / and
I would need the bz2 and freetype logs.
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:43:51 AM UTC+1, Evan Oman wrote:
>
> Oh and here is the full Pillow log. It seems to fail after trying this:
>
> building 'PIL._imagingft' extension
>
> I remember that being mentioned somewhere but without a solution.
>
> On We
26 matches
Mail list logo
