[sage-devel] Have problem with R Interpreter

I use the following code but failed. ### x=[1,2,3,4,5] y=[2,3,4,5,6] x=r(x) y=r(y) r.t_test(x,y,alternative="less") ### It returns that error:object 48 not found But it works if I didn't use alternative. r.t_test(x,y) will return the result of two sid

[sage-devel] Re: "Groups" in Sage

You've misunderstood me, by explicit_generators I mean group_generators(), algebra_generators(), module_generators(), etc., i.e. being explicit about what type of generators. On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:18:37 PM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:05:49 PM UTC-4, Trav

Re: [sage-devel] On scientific computing, Python and Julia

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:47 PM, rjf wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote: >> >> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:43:57 AM UTC-7, defeo wrote: >>> >>> However, Julia multimethods are backed up by a powerful coercion >>> system, so I do not understand the "step bac

[sage-devel] Re: "Groups" in Sage

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:05:49 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > > Explicit is better than implicit to minimize the choices. > But adding "explicit_" in front of everything is just a typing exercise, it does not convey any information. explicit_generators(), explicit_ring_generators(), ex

Re: [sage-devel] On scientific computing, Python and Julia

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote: > > On Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:43:57 AM UTC-7, defeo wrote: > >> However, Julia multimethods are backed up by a powerful coercion >> system, so I do not understand the "step back" criticism. >> >> That comment wasn't made with res

Re: [sage-devel] On scientific computing, Python and Julia

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > Yes, you can definitely do most of this with template metaprogramming, > although, as you say it's pretty tricky. Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use template metaprogramming." Now they have a type-param

[sage-devel] Re: Curious problem with Sage "fat_binary" tarballs

SAGE_FAT_BINRAY is quite fragile. > If you really want me to, I can break it on quite every system. > Are the machine really different? > Maybe its just a problem with R and can be fixed. > > I think that is quite likely and could be fixed with spkg-install or whatever is used now... -- You r

[sage-devel] Re: "Groups" in Sage

It's a good reason why we should try to move away from gens(), as I stated above. Explicit is better than implicit to minimize the choices. It's not a matter of just "dealing with it". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubs

[sage-devel] Re: Curious problem with Sage "fat_binary" tarballs

SAGE_FAT_BINRAY is quite fragile. If you really want me to, I can break it on quite every system. Are the machine really different? Maybe its just a problem with R and can be fixed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe fr

Re: [sage-devel] New IML release

More fun at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16706. If nobody raises its voice, I'll just forward the current archive there to Arne for release. Best, JP On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:35:38 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:30:15 PM UTC+2, François wrote:

[sage-devel] Curious problem with Sage "fat_binary" tarballs

I have yet another example of the brittleness of Sage binaries. See trac#16694 for details. Roughly, a binary compiled with "SAGE_FAT_BINARY="yes" gives a defective Sage's R on a machine differing from the original one. I may have another one in preparat

[sage-devel] Re: "Groups" in Sage

How is that related? I agree with Nicolas, gens() or generators() shall be the most specific kind of generator. You can always have whatever_generators() for generators of any kind of substructure in addition. On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:46:20 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > > On Wednesda

[sage-devel] Re: "Groups" in Sage

> > On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:04:49 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> We do want to try and get away from the sometimes ambiguous gens() to >> explicit_generators() >> > > Unless you also envision an implicit_generators() that is a bad name. > Generators are almost always involve choi

[sage-devel] Re: "Groups" in Sage

Some of the history of parents and generators is discussed here https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/3c0vPGOWWMI/ys5hYhhdp3sJ On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:04:49 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > > We do want to try and get away from the sometimes ambiguous gens() to > explicit_generato

[sage-devel] Re: "Groups" in Sage

Hey everyone, If anybody asks you whether Sage supports groups, here is an answer : > Well, the question should be whether Sage supports Cartesian products. Right now the answer is not really beyond sets because I don't think anyone has wanted it (maybe there's some tickets on this...?). With #

Re: [sage-devel] "Groups" in Sage

Hello ! > The methods first and last give the first and last element of an > enumeration: I guess, but do we want them as methods of Group instances ? > This probably comes up for a cartesian product of cyclic permutation > groups, because those are considered finite enumerated sets: Some assum

Re: [sage-devel] "Groups" in Sage

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:59:24 -0400 David Joyner wrote: > "first" I assume means first factor in the product, and similarly for "last". > I don't know why they don't work. They should return the set > associated to the first (resp., last) factor in the product. The methods first and last give the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: very slow arithmetic in cartesian_product of fields

Hell !! > Cartesian product is a generic construction, so it should be clear that it > is much slower than the super-optimized routines for prime finite fields. It probably will never be as fast as those fields, but there is a waste of time anyway. > Do you need element-wise multiplicati

[sage-devel] Re: very slow arithmetic in cartesian_product of fields

Cartesian product is a generic construction, so it should be clear that it is much slower than the super-optimized routines for prime finite fields. Do you need element-wise multiplication? If you are only interested in the Abelian group structure then there is AbelianGroup([2,3]). Maybe you wan

Re: [sage-devel] "Groups" in Sage

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote: > Yo !! > >> Is this a confusion over categories, Nathann? > > > Or natural stupidity, your choice. > >> sage: G1 = CyclicPermutationGroup(5) >> sage: G2 = CyclicPermutationGroup(4) >> sage: D1 = G1.direct_product(G2,False) >> sage:

Re: [sage-devel] "Groups" in Sage

Yo !! Is this a confusion over categories, Nathann? > Or natural stupidity, your choice. sage: G1 = CyclicPermutationGroup(5) > sage: G2 = CyclicPermutationGroup(4) > sage: D1 = G1.direct_product(G2,False) > sage: D2 = D1.direct_product(G2,False) > sage: D2.base_ring() > Integ

Re: [sage-devel] "Groups" in Sage

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote: > Hello guys ! > > If anybody asks you whether Sage supports groups, here is an answer : > > sage: > AG=cartesian_product([CyclicPermutationGroup(5),CyclicPermutationGroup(4),CyclicPermutationGroup(4)]) Is this a confusion over categories, Na

[sage-devel] "Groups" in Sage

Hello guys ! If anybody asks you whether Sage supports groups, here is an answer : sage: AG=cartesian_product([CyclicPermutationGroup(5),CyclicPermutationGroup(4),CyclicPermutationGroup(4)]) sage: AG.base_ring() # WTF ??? This has nothing to do here sage: AG.construction() # same comment sage: AG

[sage-devel] very slow arithmetic in cartesian_product of fields

in GF(2)xGF(3) addition is about 50 times (!) slower than in GF(7). sage: c=cartesian_product([GF(2),GF(3)]) sage: %timeit c((1,1))+c((1,1)) 1 loops, best of 3: 67.5 µs per loop sage: d=GF(7) sage: %timeit d(1)+d(1) 100 loops, best of 3: 1.44 µs per loop This makes it next to useless for s

[sage-devel] Re: git-trac guessing remote branch skips one letter

On 2014-07-23, Daniel Krenn wrote: > I was working on > > krenn@brown:/local/data/krenn/sage/current6$ git branch --contains > * article-fsm-in-sage > > and then wanted to push it on trac by: > > krenn@brown:/local/data/krenn/sage/current6$ git-trac push 16705 > Pushing to Trac #16705... >

Re: [sage-devel] New IML release

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:30:15 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > > In that case the README. > Done, I've updated evrything. -- 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 it, send a

Re: [sage-devel] New IML release

In that case the README. The overzealous may add a note to the COPYING file if there is one. On 23/07/2014, at 22:23, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:20:06 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > I would put a line in SPKG.txt personally. I don't think the change log is > ap

Re: [sage-devel] New IML release

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:20:06 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > > I would put a line in SPKG.txt personally. I don’t think the change log is > appropriate for credits of that kind. > I meant the IML ChangeLog (autotools stuff) file. I could also add a line in the README there. -- You receiv

Re: [sage-devel] New IML release

I would put a line in SPKG.txt personally. I don't think the change log is appropriate for credits of that kind. On 23/07/2014, at 22:14, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:10:34 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > From the website: > http://www.netlib.org/blas/faq.html#2

Re: [sage-devel] New IML release

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:10:34 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > > From the website: > http://www.netlib.org/blas/faq.html#2 > > and more precisely: > "We only ask that proper credit be given to the authors.” > > Would the line in the ChangeLog mentioning the inclusion be enough? -- You re

Re: [sage-devel] New IML release

>From the website: http://www.netlib.org/blas/faq.html#2 and more precisely: "We only ask that proper credit be given to the authors." François On 23/07/2014, at 22:07, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:00:20 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > The whole netlib Blas/lapack

Re: [sage-devel] New IML release

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:00:20 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > > The whole netlib Blas/lapack is under the original BSD license. As for the > examples.patch > So what should be done if we just want to include it? Don't whant to think about licenses now. (Note that for mysterious reason, ever

Re: [sage-devel] New IML release

The whole netlib Blas/lapack is under the original BSD license. As for the examples.patch I have no idea. François On 23/07/2014, at 21:52, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm in contact with Arne to craft a new IML release including all our patches > and would need some help to make

[sage-devel] New IML release

Dear all, I'm in contact with Arne to craft a new IML release including all our patches and would need some help to make sure everything is fine. I've put a trac branch at u/jpflori/iml-1.0.4, a tarball and the corresponding patches (on top of iml-1.0.3, just apply them in alphabetical order) a

[sage-devel] git-trac guessing remote branch skips one letter

I was working on krenn@brown:/local/data/krenn/sage/current6$ git branch --contains * article-fsm-in-sage and then wanted to push it on trac by: krenn@brown:/local/data/krenn/sage/current6$ git-trac push 16705 Pushing to Trac #16705... Guessed remote branch: u/dkrenn/rticle-fsm-in-sage

[sage-devel] Re: "Sage for Undergraduates" is released

Wow! It looks nice. Thank you for sharing this. Kwankyu -- 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 it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this g

[sage-devel] Re: Bugs in the element constructors for the SymmetricGroupAlgebra and its group

Fixed in http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16678. -- 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 it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, sen