On 2014-04-22, Kannappan Sampath wrote:
> Hi Nathann,
>
> On Apr 22, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
>> Y !!
>>
>> But, of course, this design extends uniquely to a (necessarily) 2-(4n, 2n,
>> n-1) design: the blocks of this design are blocks of the old design unio
After reading a bit about SCM and git I would advise against use of sage
-dev.
I had used sage -dev the last weeks but now I exclusively do 'git trac'
which
does all I need but much better than sage -dev.
Documentation is in
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16030
Regards,
--
You received this
2014-04-23 7:10 UTC+02:00, William Stein :
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Kannappan Sampath
> wrote:
>> I also need more git hand holding: I am trying to attach some code from
>> my
>> local branch to a ticket. I did the following:
>>
>> Apples-MacBook-Pro:combinat apple$ sage -dev checkout --
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Kannappan Sampath wrote:
> I also need more git hand holding: I am trying to attach some code from my
> local branch to a ticket. I did the following:
>
> Apples-MacBook-Pro:combinat apple$ sage -dev checkout --ticket 16211
> On ticket #16211 with associated local
I also need more git hand holding: I am trying to attach some code from my
local branch to a ticket. I did the following:
Apples-MacBook-Pro:combinat apple$ sage -dev checkout --ticket 16211
On ticket #16211 with associated local branch "ticket/16211".
# Use "sage --dev merge" to include anoth
I get a whole bunch of edits, nothing relevant to the changes made by this
ticket... :-(
Probably master is not the right thing? I tried develop too...
-Kannappan.
On Apr 23, 2014, at 7:33 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-support/gIet3_kQNzo for what
>
See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-support/gIet3_kQNzo for
what to do - e.g. sage -dev diff --base master might work.
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:02:25 PM UTC-4, KnS wrote:
>
> Hello group,
>
> I am trying to review the ticket 16091. I did
>
> sage -dev checkout --ticket 16091
>
Hello group,
I am trying to review the ticket 16091. I did
sage -dev checkout --ticket 16091
and I now have a new branch ticket/16091. When I do sage -dev diff, however, I
see nothing. I was hoping to see the changes made by the branch attached to the
ticket. Could you kindly help me with t
Also, I am not sure whether there is a practical algorithm to compute the
Galois group when the extension is not normal (for splitting fields, there is
one due to Susan Landau; however there are mod p techniques too)!
On Apr 23, 2014, at 2:41 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On 2014-04-22, Jeroe
Hi Nathann,
On Apr 22, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Y !!
>
> But, of course, this design extends uniquely to a (necessarily) 2-(4n, 2n,
> n-1) design: the blocks of this design are blocks of the old design union a
> new point infinity and complements (in the o
On 2014-04-22, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2014-04-21 10:10, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> this is not a normal extension, and apparently neither Pari nor GAP
>> can deal with it.
>> Pathetic...
>> Is it really so hard to implement, having the library of permutation
>> groups at hand (from GAP)?
> The h
Aaarghh... nobody took up the port of Rubi to Sage. Too bad for the
"engineering type" users of sage, for which this class of problems is
important.
Anyone having an idea for promoting this ?
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
Le mardi 22 avril 2014 15:40:55 UTC+2, William a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2
leif wrote:
leif wrote:
Is there already a ticket for issues with GCC 4.9?
I think I'll open a (small) metaticket soon.
Did so: http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16208
Although it's (currently) not a metaticket; I also haven't pushed the
patches yet, but will do so soon.
Both patches (to L
>
>
> > 2) Publishing from the cloud? (In the sense of the "published
> worksheets".)
>
> I have some ideas about how to safely allow it.
>
>
Awesome.
> In fact, it sounds a lot like quite a few things I've been reading
> recently
> > about OSS and building clientele/business. Not having it
I agree that we shouldn't have Groups.blah since the static methods
become methods/attributes of Groups() (we can see this behavior with
Partitions.from_*`\) and would clutter up the category's methods. Perhaps
they could be accessible via a static attribute Groups.objects (Nicolas and
I tal
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> Does anyone have an update about what projects are Google Summer of Code
> projects are running under the Sage umbrella?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-announce/2XlTbBn4uCE
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> --
> You received this messag
Does anyone have an update about what projects are Google Summer of Code
projects are running under the Sage umbrella?
Thanks,
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from i
Vincent Delecroix wrote:
I was a bit wrong with my computations. Have a look at the file
SAGE_ROOT/src/sage/graphs/distance_all_pairs.pyx
You will see that matrices for distances are implemented as unsigned
short (whose maximum is 65535=2^16) while eccentricity is made of int
(whose maximum depe
Y !!
But, of course, this design extends uniquely to a (necessarily) 2-(4n, 2n,
> n-1) design: the blocks of this design are blocks of the old design union a
> new point infinity and complements (in the old point set) of the blocks of
> old design. And, any contraction is is
On 2014-04-21 10:10, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
this is not a normal extension, and apparently neither Pari nor GAP
can deal with it.
Pathetic...
Is it really so hard to implement, having the library of permutation
groups at hand (from GAP)?
The hard part is the number theory, not the group theory. If
Hello again,
I was a bit wrong with my computations. Have a look at the file
SAGE_ROOT/src/sage/graphs/distance_all_pairs.pyx
You will see that matrices for distances are implemented as unsigned
short (whose maximum is 65535=2^16) while eccentricity is made of int
(whose maximum depends on your a
Hello Miguel,
If you need support in Sage you should use the sage-support
googlegroups or ask.sagemath.org. The sage-devel mailing list is about
development and bug report.
To answer your question, if you want to compute all distances in a
graph with more than 65535 vertices then your RAM must be
Hi everyone,
I'm using SAGE to compute the diameter and hyperbolicity of large graphs
(100k - 10M of nodes). At the beginning I had problems to compute the
diameter in such graphs. However, I found the solution in
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15507. Then, I tried to compute the
hyperbolici
Hi everyone,
I'm using SAGE to compute the diameter and hyperbolicity of large graphs
(100k - 10M of nodes). At the beginning I had problems to compute the
diameter in such graphs. However, I found the solution in
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15507. Then, I tried to compute the
hyperbolici
Hi everyone,
I'm interesting in to compute both the diameter and hyperbolicity of large
graphs (between 10k and 10M of nodes) using SAGE. At the beginning I had
problems computing the diameter. However I solved the problem using the
solutions presented in the ticked #15507. Then, I tried to co
-1 to the whole idea of making categories also factories for particular
implementations of that category. Besides the confusing aspects that others
have already mentioned (and the tab completion annoyance), its the wrong
way logically (and, therefore, as far as python imports are concerned). The
Ok, thank you! I was thinking in term of quotient instead of extension of
number field.
Indeed it's not the good place for posting, sorry!
Le mardi 22 avril 2014 11:02:44 UTC+2, vdelecroix a écrit :
>
> Hello François,
>
> This kind of question would rather go to the sage-support mailing list
Hello François,
This kind of question would rather go to the sage-support mailing list
or ask.sagemath.org.
To answer your question: Yes. As you can see the output says "over its
base field" which means that you built an extension of a number field.
You can check
sage: K. =
NumberField([cyclotom
Hello group,
I wonder why
sage: K. = NumberField([cyclotomic_polynomial(3),cyclotomic_polynomial
(5)]); K
Number Field in k0 with defining polynomial x^2 + x + 1 over its base field
sage: K.gens()
(k0, k1)
should not rather print
Number Field in k0, k1 with defining polynomials x^2 + x + 1, x
2014-04-20 17:28 UTC+02:00, John H Palmieri :
>
>
> On Friday, April 18, 2014 4:22:59 PM UTC-7, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>On http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15289 I'm implementing monoids and
>> groups indexed by an arbitrary set of generators and Nicolas and I would
>> like
Hi David,
On 2014-04-22, David Roe wrote:
> Mainly because tab completion is more complicated for Groups().
Tab completion doesn't work if you have any yet-to-be-computed expression
(such as: the brackets put after Groups) while hitting tab. 1+1
doesn't work either. sin(pi). doesn't work either.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Travis,
>
> On 2014-04-20, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> > Hey Simon,
> >I believe John was referring to the catalog of groups (which I forgot
> > about, thanks!) and proposing a similar catalog for algebras (which I
> > support).
>
> Exac
32 matches
Mail list logo
