I don't exactly know what you mean by more details but I tried to follow
these instructions as accurately as I could. These also included the
instructions vdelecroix posted.
https://github.com/sagemathinc/smc/wiki/SageMath-Development-on-SageMathCloud
Thanks
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 1:
I strongly agree with Dima. My understanding is that SageCloud is NOT a
money making venture but rather a means of supporting sage. IMHO it's a
good thing and I am happy for my code to go there (not that I have time to
write much at present:().
Andrew
On Thursday, 13 August 2015 08:02:58 UTC+1
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
In many cases where we can solve the word problem we just use canonical
> representatives from the get-go. So there == would still do what you would
> naively expect even when comparing presentations in a given parent. But
>
Ready for review - I've ended up rewriting quite a bit in echelon_form
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 02:50:01 UTC-6, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> The principle of least surprise would suggest that mutability should
> follow the same rules independent of the matrix size. And echelon_form
> should always
On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 10:55:45 UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Hello William,
>
> I cannot say that I like your new signature the slightest bit [1].
>
> I feel like the work to software I contribute is being stolen by
> somebody who wants to make money off it. I feel like its name has b
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:32:49 PM UTC+2, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> Yes, and I agree that we'd be deviating very far from the mathematical
> norm if we'd let `==` mean anything else for group elements. It also means,
> as Volker points out, that in group presentations where we don't have a
I have been discussing this out with my girlfriend.
Appalled as I was at witnessing computer scientists debate whether
"==" should (or not) be what everybody on earth expects from a "=="
sgn (don't trust me? Poll it), I felt rather down. But then we
discussed it.
And we thought that it would be a
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 1:08:00 PM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-08-12 19:14, Volker Braun wrote:
> > "==" isn't used in any group theory textbook to my knowledge... Of
> > course group-equality should be a method, all I'm saying is that naming
> > it __eq__() really badly i
On 2015-08-12 19:14, Volker Braun wrote:
"==" isn't used in any group theory textbook to my knowledge... Of
course group-equality should be a method, all I'm saying is that naming
it __eq__() really badly interacts with associative containers.
To be clear, this isn't about comparing groups, bu
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/08/15 21:32, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Vincent Delecroix
>> <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/08/15 06:23, Hans Gundlach wrote:
I also assu
On 12/08/15 21:32, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/08/15 06:23, Hans Gundlach wrote:
I also assumed all this is done in the sage cloud terminal.
What is "all this"? This should be up to you whether you want to
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/08/15 06:23, Hans Gundlach wrote:
>>
>> I also assumed all this is done in the sage cloud terminal.
>
>
> What is "all this"? This should be up to you whether you want to use the
> cloud or your own compu
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> I feel like the work to software I contribute is being stolen by
> somebody who wants to make money off it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
> I feel like its name has been stolen too.
Do you know who came up with
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 7:55:45 PM UTC+2, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> But when sagemath.com is a website that sells Sage Cloud, we have a
> problem.
>
Which problem in particular? Can you elaborate? Or do you just share your
personal feelings with the aim to spread bad politics among th
On 12/08/15 20:32, Volker Braun wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:03:01 PM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote:
As far as I understand, the problem is that this company (and its
website) has the very same name as the free software
How's that not pretty common?
And how this would be an argument
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:03:01 PM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> As far as I understand, the problem is that this company (and its
> website) has the very same name as the free software
How's that not pretty common? E.g.
https://mariadb.com
https://mariadb.org
--
You received this mes
> "==" isn't used in any group theory textbook to my knowledge... Of course
> group-equality should be a method, all I'm saying is that naming it __eq__()
> really badly interacts with associative containers.
I find your proposition very entertaining, and I suggest that you open
an independent th
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 3:29:13 PM UTC+2, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > IMHO the real bug is that == is group-comparison instead of
> > presentation-comparison.
>
> P.S.: If you want to change it and make it a
> "presentation-comparison", this class should not be considered as a
> Group a
On 12/08/15 19:59, Julien Puydt wrote:
Hi,
On 12/08/2015 19:55, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Hello William,
I cannot say that I like your new signature the slightest bit [1].
I feel like the work to software I contribute is being stolen by
somebody who wants to make money off it. I feel like its name
Hi,
On 12/08/2015 19:55, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Hello William,
I cannot say that I like your new signature the slightest bit [1].
I feel like the work to software I contribute is being stolen by
somebody who wants to make money off it. I feel like its name has been
stolen too. Sagemath is clearl
Hello William,
I cannot say that I like your new signature the slightest bit [1].
I feel like the work to software I contribute is being stolen by
somebody who wants to make money off it. I feel like its name has been
stolen too. Sagemath is clearly a free software for mathematics, and
"Sagecloud
Den onsdag den 12. august 2015 kl. 16.07.15 UTC+2 skrev mmarco:
>
> I see, i got the wrong idea about the representation. Thanks for the
> clarification. In that casde, it would be really interesting to run your
> benchmark on a lot of different cases. Maybe the sparcity advantage gets
> reduced
I see, i got the wrong idea about the representation. Thanks for the
clarification. In that casde, it would be really interesting to run your
benchmark on a lot of different cases. Maybe the sparcity advantage gets
reduced after a big number of crossings, when we get a lot of non-zero
entries i
Den onsdag den 12. august 2015 kl. 15.26.09 UTC+2 skrev mmarco:
>
> The TL representation involves the product of a nuumber of matrices that
> is linear on the number of crossings, and the complexity of such a matrix
> is also polynomial on the number of strands (around fourth power maybe?).
>
> IMHO the real bug is that == is group-comparison instead of
> presentation-comparison.
P.S.: If you want to change it and make it a
"presentation-comparison", this class should not be considered as a
Group anymore, for the axioms would not be satisfied then. Your call.
Nathann
--
You received
Out of my head, the bracket method is exponential in the number of
crossings, and pretty much independent on the number of strands. The TL
representation involves the product of a nuumber of matrices that is linear
on the number of crossings, and the complexity of such a matrix is also
polynomi
> IMHO the real bug is that == is group-comparison instead of
> presentation-comparison.
I take it as a design choice in that class. I opened this thread
because no standard on earth defines that two equal elements must have
the same __repr__, and that this is what the current implementation
assum
IMHO the real bug is that == is group-comparison instead of
presentation-comparison. This obviously breaks hashes, and therefor makes
associative containers useless. Getting rid of the hashes just means that
associative containers are now useless because the word problem is not
decidable. At le
Hello everybody,
I have been playing with groups recently, and fought very hard with my code
before I noticed the usual bug:
sage: a == b
True
sage: hash(a) == hash(b)
False
Which has (among others) the following consequence:
sage: G = groups.presentation.Cyclic(4)
sage:
Sorry, an incorrect tarball got pushed for 2.5.1. I've just uploaded it
again. Please update to the latest tarball.
Bill.
On 12 August 2015 at 12:38, Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've just release Flint 2.5.1 on our website http://flintlib.org/
>
> This fixes a number of build issues related
The methods have been include in [http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19011
trac ticket #19011].
At the end of the day, it would be nice to have some kind of mechanism for
deciding which algorithm to use as they really are rather different. I made
a simply benchmark to highlight their strengths and
Hi all,
I've just release Flint 2.5.1 on our website http://flintlib.org/
This fixes a number of build issues related to the new soname versioning
and our use of ldconfig.
Many thanks to Francois Bissey and Vincent Delecroix for patches and
reporting the build issues.
Bill.
--
You received th
On 2015-08-12 03:01, Hans Gundlach wrote:
I'm having a problem connecting my ssh key to my Trac account. I first
tried linking my key manually. I generated a ssh key and copied the key
to my trac account and saved. Note,Is the first part of the ssh-rsa part
needed for the ssh key? when I typed s
33 matches
Mail list logo
