> On 24/09/2015, at 16:51, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
> Compiling Sage from scratch (6.8 sources) fails because the maxima install
> fails, because it loads ~/quicklisp/setup.lisp.
>
> Am I the first Lisp programmer to try this?
I suspect you are. Is there a variable you can set to point to a “set
>
> ex.is_zero(simplify=False)
> ex.is_zero(simplify=True)
This fits if ex is an equality. But what about: if x>0 ?
Two functions are necessary for inequalities because (x>0).__nonzero__
is called by (x>0)._cmp_ in case of eg. uniq(list of exes) and
here print or alphabetical order is call
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 11:14:32 PM UTC+2, William wrote:
> ex.is_zero(simplify=False)
> ex.is_zero(simplify=True)
Most consistent. Why didn't I think of this.
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 10:08:52 PM UTC+2, Michael Orlitzky
wrote:
>
> Doesn't `bool(x == y)` already t
I'm trying to get around a build problem with sqlite3. I thought that
doing an update might address that (I was wrong about that). But that's
incidental; shouldn't "sage -update" work even if it's pointless?
Bill
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 3:45:54 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
Compiling Sage from scratch (6.8 sources) fails because the maxima install
fails, because it loads ~/quicklisp/setup.lisp.
Am I the first Lisp programmer to try this?
Bill
/usr/bin/install -c mgnuplot
'/Volumes/datanew/local/sage-6.8/local/libexec/maxima/5.35.1'
/bin/sh /Volumes/datanew/local
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 15:38:11 UTC-7, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
> I downloaded the OS X version of Sage 6.8, unpacked it, and tried to run
> "sage -update". However, it fails immediately:
>
6.8 is the latest stable version. What are you trying to upgrade?
>
> touch /Volumes/datanew/l
I downloaded the OS X version of Sage 6.8, unpacked it, and tried to run
"sage -update". However, it fails immediately:
touch /Volumes/datanew/local/sage-6.8/local/var/lib/sage/installed/prereq
/Volumes/datanew/local/sage-6.8/build/pipestatus "sage-spkg -f
bzip2-1.0.6.20140317 2>&1" "tee -a
/V
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Ralf Stephan wrote:
> Symbolic expressions are tested for zero with bool(ex) at the moment,
> regardless if one wants to know if ex is identical with the zero object
> or if one wants a simplification of ex (which is slow).
>
> Because a finer-grained interface is
On 09/23/2015 12:31 PM, Ralf Stephan wrote:
> Symbolic expressions are tested for zero with bool(ex) at the moment,
> regardless if one wants to know if ex is identical with the zero object
> or if one wants a simplification of ex (which is slow).
>
> Because a finer-grained interface is needed th
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 11:10:46 UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-23 19:43, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > There are well-accepted abbreviations in various areas of maths, e.g.
> > ILP for Integer Linear Programming.
>
> Let me answer this with a real life anecdote:
>
> When I w
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 10:43:43 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 10:32:08 UTC-7, Thierry
> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:46:10PM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> > On 2015-09-23 18:44, Dima Pasechnik
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 11:09:25 UTC-7, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> > Posets.DoD() ?
>
> DoD?
>
google "Pentagon" :)
>
> And should it be PartiallyOrderedSets.*? :=)
>
> --
> Jori Mäntysalo
>
--
You received this message because you a
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:09:25 PM UTC-5, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> > Posets.DoD() ?
>
> DoD?
>
> Department of Defense. Although my first thought was "Day of Defeat"...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 2015-09-23 19:43, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
There are well-accepted abbreviations in various areas of maths, e.g.
ILP for Integer Linear Programming.
Let me answer this with a real life anecdote:
When I was a young graduate student, I attended some seminar. Literally
the first sentence of the
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Posets.DoD() ?
DoD?
And should it be PartiallyOrderedSets.*? :=)
--
Jori Mäntysalo
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 10:32:08 UTC-7, Thierry
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:46:10PM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> > On 2015-09-23 18:44, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > >one has to draw a line somewhere; 40-symbol names must be forbidden
> > >outri
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:46:10PM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2015-09-23 18:44, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> >one has to draw a line somewhere; 40-symbol names must be forbidden
> >outright, and 20-symbol names ought to be
> >avoided without a very good reasons to the contrary...
>
> On th
On 2015-09-23, Jori =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E4ntysalo?= wrote:
> Maybe for native english speakers it is easier to read abbreviations. At
> least we should not use something like 'sublats' for 'sublattices' and so
> on. On the other hand (as I have said before), Posets.PentagonPoset()
> could just be
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:56:41PM +0200, Jan Groenewald wrote:
[...]
> Basic question: What does it take to enable SSL? Do those commands work on
> 1) source build
On Debian/Ubuntu just install 'libssl-dev' before building, and 'openssl'
before running.
> 2) binary (LTS)
Sage is compiled
On 2015-09-23, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> Do we have a vim plugin that will do these tab-completions for you?
Since recently I use geany, and when writing C or Python or Cython code
it gives rather decent name completion.
Cheers,
Simon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to th
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 10:00:33 UTC-7, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> > one has to draw a line somewhere; 40-symbol names must be forbidden
> > outright, and 20-symbol names ought to be
> > avoided without a very good reasons to the contrary.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
one has to draw a line somewhere; 40-symbol names must be forbidden
outright, and 20-symbol names ought to be
avoided without a very good reasons to the contrary...
True.
Maybe for native english speakers it is easier to read abbreviations. At
leas
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 09:46:15 UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-23 18:44, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > one has to draw a line somewhere; 40-symbol names must be forbidden
> > outright, and 20-symbol names ought to be
> > avoided without a very good reasons to the contrary...
When replying, please exclude sage-release.
Regards,
Jan
On 23 September 2015 at 18:56, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm not sure. Can we move this thread to sage-devel and ask there?
>
> This was more about getting at least a working PPA out. I will follow on
> sage-devel though.
>
> Basic q
Hi
I'm not sure. Can we move this thread to sage-devel and ask there?
This was more about getting at least a working PPA out. I will follow on
sage-devel though.
Basic question: What does it take to enable SSL? Do those commands work on
1) source build
2) binary (LTS)
3) PPA
Regards,
Jan
On 23
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 08:19:54 UTC-7, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>
> So, assuming gcc-4.7 (or equivalent) is needed by a package, what problems
> are
> to be expected? Linux is fine, but other supported systems?
>
Other? OSX is the only other, and it comes with a broken native compiler
late
On 2015-09-23 18:44, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
one has to draw a line somewhere; 40-symbol names must be forbidden
outright, and 20-symbol names ought to be
avoided without a very good reasons to the contrary...
On the other hand, with TAB-completion, that doesn't really matter so much.
--
You re
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 09:25:51 UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> What is our policy with respect to abbreviations in fuctions/methods?
>
> I believe that we "tried to avoid them", but it does not seem to be
> written anywhere in the developer's manual.
>
one has
On 2015-09-23 17:19, Ralf Stephan wrote:
So, assuming gcc-4.7 (or equivalent) is needed by a package, what
problems are to be expected?
None.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving email
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 09:33:55 UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 08:04:28 UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>>
>> I am feeling inclined to open a trac ticket with the purpose of going
>>> through everyhting I have written in the Sage library and making sur
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 08:04:28 UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> I am feeling inclined to open a trac ticket with the purpose of going
>> through everyhting I have written in the Sage library and making sure
>> that there's an AUTHOR block with my name on it wherever appropriate!
>> A
Symbolic expressions are tested for zero with bool(ex) at the moment,
regardless if one wants to know if ex is identical with the zero object
or if one wants a simplification of ex (which is slow).
Because a finer-grained interface is needed that does not surprise the
user I would like to have you
Hello everybody,
What is our policy with respect to abbreviations in fuctions/methods?
I believe that we "tried to avoid them", but it does not seem to be
written anywhere in the developer's manual.
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-dev
> I am feeling inclined to open a trac ticket with the purpose of going
>> through everyhting I have written in the Sage library and making sure
>> that there's an AUTHOR block with my name on it wherever appropriate!
>> And if all current developers would do the same
>>
>
> We can do it
So, assuming gcc-4.7 (or equivalent) is needed by a package, what problems
are
to be expected? Linux is fine, but other supported systems?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr
>
> I am feeling inclined to open a trac ticket with the purpose of going
> through everyhting I have written in the Sage library and making sure
> that there's an AUTHOR block with my name on it wherever appropriate!
> And if all current developers would do the same
>
We can do it semi-
I am feeling inclined to open a trac ticket with the purpose of going
through everyhting I have written in the Sage library and making sure
that there's an AUTHOR block with my name on it wherever appropriate!
And if all current developers would do the same
John
On 23 September 2015 at 03:08
> This argument is unconvincing to me; it's too black and white. You
> could also make the same argument about the majority of content in
> every research paper ever written. Just because "people" do things
> doesn't automatically imply that what they do is not even remotely
> correct. And our
38 matches
Mail list logo
