Hi Andrew,
On 2014-11-27, Andrew wrote:
> Speaking only for myself, it is exactly this sort of post that I would like
> to avoid. Why can't the person who gets "loud" taker a breather, calm down
> and post something more sensible tomorrow?
Because s/he is, for whatever reason, not able to. S/h
Hello !
> Speaking only for myself, it is exactly this sort of post that I would like
> to avoid. Why can't the person who gets "loud" taker a breather, calm down
> and post something more sensible tomorrow? I think it is hypocritical to say
> that it is OK for some one to write "loud" posts an
On Thursday, 27 November 2014 17:18:07 UTC+11, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Beware, for our developpers have very strong feelings about their work. It
> is important to them, and if they get loud remember that their eyes are
> stuck on the code, and that they want to build something they can be pro
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Viviane Pons wrote:
>> I feel this is going nowhere...
>>
>> We should start with the assumption we all agree on something: we want the
>> sage mailing list to be place where no one is bullied and where w
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Viviane Pons wrote:
> I feel this is going nowhere...
>
> We should start with the assumption we all agree on something: we want the
> sage mailing list to be place where no one is bullied and where we can
> express our different point of views safely and with res
Hello,
> I agree, it's a legitimate question. Don't interpret too much the
> delay though: for example, in my case, it's simply that, with 16 hours
> of teaching per week those last weeks, even keeping up with the
> discussion is tricky :-)
I understand. Actually, some persons raised the very sam
On 26 November 2014 at 12:58, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Bill Page
> wrote:
>>
>> Does it help if a say the operations are defined "symbolically"?
>
> All I want is if you can give me an algorithm of your approach
> in sufficient detail, so that it can be implemente
>
> At least two of us who voted against the Code of Conduct think it a good
> idea to amend with a clause to the following effect:
>
I think that it is a good clause, and I hope that the document to which it
could eventually belong will be a "Guidelines" one and not a code. It says
what you c
On 2014-11-26, Han Frederic wrote:
> Hi, I have tried the factorization with giacpy. (cf trac 12375).
> I had to expexpand first before factoring and did this:
>
> sage: from giacpy import libgiac
> sage: x=libgiac('x')
> sage: s=exp(1024*(x+1))-1
> sage: %time s.expexpand().factor()
> CPU times:
Dear Nathann,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:37:58PM -0800, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>Thus I am asking again, and politely despite my finding very
>disrespectful to have a legitimate question ignored: who was on the
>short list to write what is now our code of conduct, when was it
>
On 2014-11-26, Simon King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2014-11-26, Thierry wrote:
>> The problem is precisely here : requiring ethics from the other in an
>> unethical way hurts.
>
> Exactly. And it seems to me that these consequences became visible in
> this discussion already.
Indeed. I can also add th
>
> Incidentally I observe that Sympy has the same behavior, so we can't
> just nick their factoring algorithm -- maybe some other package we can
> try the same example to see if any of them handle it quickly?
>
> best
>
> Robert Dodier
>
> Hi, I have tried the factorization with giacpy. (cf
Thanks, everyone. I agree with Bruno's improvement on my suggestion. I will
do this in the next few days, but I am first traveling, & I may need a
reminder.
I also think the interfaces between univariate & multivariate polynomials
should be brought more in line, but that seems like quite a bit
Hi,
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:28:33 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> ...
> The motivation for suggesting the code was that quite a few people were
> unhappy with repeated negative comments that appeared in a long series of
posts.
> ...
> A number of people have stopped contributing to sage beca
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 9:17:27 PM UTC+1, François wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A bit of a shot in the dark but could you try it from a folder with
> only ascii characters? "Telechargements" instead of "Téléchargement".
> It is possible that the ecl bootstrap doesn't like those characters
> ver
On 2014-11-26, Volker Braun wrote:
> --=_Part_1461_774968532.1417015681893
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="=_Part_1462_407798269.1417015681894"
>
> --=_Part_1462_407798269.1417015681894
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Wednesday, November 26, 2
Hi John,
On 2014-11-26, john_perry_usm wrote:
> I would propose the following:
>
> *f.coeffs?* should state something to the effect of, "Returns all the
> coefficients of a dense representation of f."
>
> *f.coefficients?* should state something like, "Returns all the
> coefficients of a sparse
Hello
At least two of us who voted against the Code of Conduct think it a good
idea to amend with a clause to the following effect:
On the other hand, we have to remember that the very fact that Sage
> developers come from different cultures, backgrounds, and social circles,
> means we each ha
Hello John,
As a very regular user of these functions, I think this is useful to
have both (and luckily you don't want to remove one or the other!). For
the documentation, I agree that it could and should be clearer!
For your proposition, I am quite reluctant on using "dense" and "sparse"
in
Hi,
A bit of a shot in the dark but could you try it from a folder with
only ascii characters? "Telechargements" instead of "Téléchargement".
It is possible that the ecl bootstrap doesn't like those characters
very much.
Francois
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:58:31 Patxi Laborde Zubieta wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hello Sages
Last week (?) I noticed that a program I wrote was making a mistake,
because f.coeffs() and f.coefficients() return very different results: the
former provides a dense representation (with 0's), the second a sparse one
(no 0's, correlating with f.exponents()).
I like this OK, but t
My 2 cents, as short as possible: there could be sage-abuse and a hidden
sage-abuse-intern.
The only odd corner case happens, when someone who has been talked about on
*-intern is some day later added to the *-intern list and reads about past
discussions. Awkward!
-- H
--
You received this m
Indeed, on a second reading, my post was an overreaction. I apologize
for that. I don't see where I "broke it clearly and cleanly at [your]
expense." If you'd like to tell me publicly or privately where I've
misstepped, I'm not going to put up a fight.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Nathann C
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:01:14 AM UTC-8, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby
Microwave Ltd) wrote:
>
> While I am all for openly sharing ideas and code, it is unreasonable
> to expect everything to be open. Since there is going to be a way of
> reporting someone for bad behavior, I think there is
I feel this is going nowhere...
We should start with the assumption we all agree on something: we want the
sage mailing list to be place where no one is bullied and where we can
express our different point of views safely and with respect. I think we
all want that whether we voted yes or no to the
I voted against the code of conduct, as I did not feel it was well
thought out. Nothing has changed my mind about that - in fact the
discussions just seem to reinforce my view. But that aside, I respect
the decision of a majority.
I always felt it was bad to have Sage developers making decisions
b
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> On 25 November 2014 at 14:51, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bill Page
>> wrote:
> ...
> Try it this way:
>
> a*b = exp(?1)
> a = exp(?2)
> b = exp(?3)
>
> I think 'normalize' is sa
Hi Nathann,
On 2014-11-26, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Volker, Tom:
>
> Please consider the tone of my first email, and the tone of your answers.
> Please consider the "code of conduct" that was just voted. Can you see why
> I may feel that you broke it clearly and cleanly at my expense ? If those
> r
On 25 November 2014 at 15:14, Erik Massop wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:30:33 -0500
> Bill Page wrote:
>
>> On 25 November 2014 at 01:11, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Bill Page
>> > wrote:
> ...
>> >> But I don't want to be forced to make a choice of branch unt
Hi Volker,
On 2014-11-26, Volker Braun wrote:
> Really, much of the 2-week discussion was just cultural confusion about
> what a code of conduct is. Mostly from the non-Americans who have never
> seen such a thing. And I understand your culture shock in that regard. On
> the other side were pe
On 25 November 2014 at 14:51, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bill Page
> wrote:
...
Try it this way:
a*b = exp(?1)
a = exp(?2)
b = exp(?3)
I think 'normalize' is saying that there is a solution that makes
?1 - ?2 - ?3
Hello everybody,
The reason why I felt that Thierry's question was legitimate, and the
reason why I renewed it repeatedly, is that I do not like to think that
anybody here has so much disrespect for our community that they believe
possible to write its laws in secret [1] and have them proposed for
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Viviane Pons wrote:
>
>
> 2014-11-26 16:29 GMT+01:00 Jakob Kroeker :
>>
>>
>> Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014 14:47:29 UTC+1 schrieb Viviane Pons:
>>
>>
>>> I would be in favour of this: having "guidelines" and not an enforced
>>> code.
>>
>>
>> ++
>>
>> ...that wou
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 7:29:52 AM UTC-8, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
>
>
> Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014 14:47:29 UTC+1 schrieb Viviane Pons:
>
>
> I would be in favour of this: having "guidelines" and not an enforced code.
>>
>
> ++
>
> ...that would require another voting which invalidates
2014-11-26 16:29 GMT+01:00 Jakob Kroeker :
>
> Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014 14:47:29 UTC+1 schrieb Viviane Pons:
>
>
> I would be in favour of this: having "guidelines" and not an enforced code.
>>
>
> ++
>
> ...that would require another voting which invalidates the previous one...
>
>
> Probab
Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014 14:47:29 UTC+1 schrieb Viviane Pons:
I would be in favour of this: having "guidelines" and not an enforced code.
>
++
...that would require another voting which invalidates the previous one...
Jakob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:41:32 PM UTC, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> I would have started any official text by "Anybody
> is welcome to contribute" or something like that.
That sounds like a mission statement, not like a code of conduct.
Really, much of the 2-week discussion was just cultural
> From Andrew:
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > I participated in the initial drafting of the code. Our draft closely
> > follows, and was stolen from, similar codes of conduct from other
> projects.
>
> The main question of Nathann, which is really fundamental is: "why was
> it redacted by a small group of
Hi,
On 2014-11-26, Thierry wrote:
> The problem is precisely here : requiring ethics from the other in an
> unethical way hurts.
Exactly. And it seems to me that these consequences became visible in
this discussion already.
Cheers,
Simon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Hello,
>From Volker:
> Why is it so important? If it makes you feel better to personally insult
> somebody then PM me, I can take it. But I'm pretty sure that the authors
> would be less happy to be called "big-dicked" than me.
I feel hurt by Volker's answer... should I report on sage-abuse?
Nath
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:45:49AM -0800, Volker Braun wrote:
> Sorry if I didn't respond fast enough, I'm teaching this semester (check
> out http://vbraun.cc/qft, also includes some Sage numerical experiments)
You make a point about votes with short deadlines. Hovewer, the vote seems
stil
On 2014-11-26 14:22, Andrew wrote:
I'm still a little
baffled as to why the suggestion that we try to being nice to each
other is causing such a commotion.
You're confusing the "Code of Conduct" with "the suggestion that we try
to being nice to each other". The former is what causing commotion.
>
>
> Rather than being put forward as a fait accompli (or even a fiat
> accompli:) Volker's initial post asked everyone to (discuss and) vote on
> whether we should adopt the code. That is, from the onset people were asked
> for their opinion. If you reread the thread, when the discussion started
Hi Nathan,
I participated in the initial drafting of the code. Our draft closely
follows, and was stolen from, similar codes of conduct from other projects.
Ultimately all that it asks is that people be polite and respectful
towards others. I don't think that this very onerous.
Rather than b
> Thus I am asking again, and politely despite my finding very disrespectful
> to have a legitimate question ignored: who was on the short list to write
> what is now our code of conduct, when was it initiated and in which
> conditions ? (yes, there are three parts to the question)
>
Hi Natha
Hi,
On 2014-11-26, Tom Boothby wrote:
> Ya know... Nathann. Buddy. Calling out people who may have had
> complaints that could trigger a discussion about a code of conduct is
> a bully move. Please avoid doing this in the future. If you want to
> vent your spleen, you're welcome to do it on s
Ya know... Nathann. Buddy. Calling out people who may have had
complaints that could trigger a discussion about a code of conduct is
a bully move. Please avoid doing this in the future. If you want to
vent your spleen, you're welcome to do it on sage-flame.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Nat
Sorry if I didn't respond fast enough, I'm teaching this semester (check
out http://vbraun.cc/qft, also includes some Sage numerical experiments)
Why is it so important? If it makes you feel better to personally insult
somebody then PM me, I can take it. But I'm pretty sure that the authors
wou
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 02:04:28PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >Does anyone have another suggestion for this?
>
> William had posted this at some point in the long thread:
>
> "Since I attempted to retract this proposal in light of Volker's
> sensible criticism, and people keep
49 matches
Mail list logo
