Re: [sage-devel] Re: Docs: Symbols and `self`

2015-09-27 Thread Jori Mäntysalo
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: 2) What about `self` in docstrings? There was a discussion about this some time ago: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/58RUzV32vI0/rf4Mldr60JkJ and the conclusion was that we should avoid to use ``self`` in the documentation. That was n

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Docs: Symbols and `self`

2015-09-27 Thread William Stein
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, William Stein wrote: > 1) Should we include symbols in docstrings? I.e. add \otimes to ordinal_product() of posets, as used in Enumerative combinatorics? > > >>> IMHO, yes. They are nicely rendered in the html

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Docs: Symbols and `self`

2015-09-27 Thread Jori Mäntysalo
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, William Stein wrote: 1) Should we include symbols in docstrings? I.e. add \otimes to ordinal_product() of posets, as used in Enumerative combinatorics? IMHO, yes. They are nicely rendered in the html documentation, either in the notebook or in the reference manual pages.

[sage-devel] comm. algebra question

2015-09-27 Thread Ralf Stephan
Can someone please clarify: How is the following supposed to work? sage: Sx. = ZZ[]; Sxy. = Sx[]; Sxyz. = Sxy[] sage: p = 1 + x*y + x*z + y*z^2 sage: P = p.integral(x) sage: from sage.misc.derivative import multi_derivative sage: multi_derivative(P,(x,)) In my understanding it cannot work because

Re: [sage-devel] how should the expression relation test be named?

2015-09-27 Thread Ralf Stephan
> > ex.can_hold() I think ex.satisfiable() is more succinct here and it allows things like ex.satisfiable(for_all((n,ZZ),(x,CC))) -- 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,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: cayley_graph: confusion between Additive and Multiplicative groups

2015-09-27 Thread Travis Scrimshaw
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 1:36:26 PM UTC-5, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > > We can possibly have a function > > > > def cayley_graph(set, generators, operator) > > Yeah yeah, that's what Travis proposed I guess. I just wondered if > there was some special trick to handle these things, as I e

Re: [sage-devel] Sources of funding - perhaps computer manufacturers?

2015-09-27 Thread Eric Gourgoulhon
Le dimanche 27 septembre 2015 20:20:18 UTC+2, William a écrit : > > > > On Sunday, September 27, 2015, Nathann Cohen > wrote: > >> What about the >> manifold guys, for instance? Are they joining the project or do they >> still develop on their own? >> >> > I think sage-manifolds is being develo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: cayley_graph: confusion between Additive and Multiplicative groups

2015-09-27 Thread Nathann Cohen
> We can possibly have a function > > def cayley_graph(set, generators, operator) Yeah yeah, that's what Travis proposed I guess. I just wondered if there was some special trick to handle these things, as I expect that it is not the first time some code has to be written twice for + and for *. Doi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: cayley_graph: confusion between Additive and Multiplicative groups

2015-09-27 Thread Vincent Delecroix
On 27/09/15 13:57, Nathann Cohen wrote: So I would create a similar function for the category of AdditiveSemigroups called additive_cayley_graph() to avoid any ambiguity and keeps with our convention that (semi)groups without "additive" are treated as multiplicative. I see. Then I have two qu

Re: [sage-devel] Re: cayley_graph: confusion between Additive and Multiplicative groups

2015-09-27 Thread Nathann Cohen
> This keeps with our convention of Groups vs AdditiveGroups and other similar > supercategories. Err.. Doesn'it sound like very bad convention, if it leads us toward having a .cayley_graph() and .additive_cayley_graph() method in every ring?... > You could either separate out any parsing code o

Re: [sage-devel] Sources of funding - perhaps computer manufacturers?

2015-09-27 Thread William Stein
On Sunday, September 27, 2015, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > Though I think the growth/survival of the SageMath project is in serious > > jeopardy due to lack of funding, I for one am definitely not giving up. > The > > activity is not doomed. If anything the only thing to do is try much > > harder,

Re: [sage-devel] Sources of funding - perhaps computer manufacturers?

2015-09-27 Thread Nathann Cohen
> Though I think the growth/survival of the SageMath project is in serious > jeopardy due to lack of funding, I for one am definitely not giving up. The > activity is not doomed. If anything the only thing to do is try much > harder, try a wider range of approaches to getting support, be more ope

Re: [sage-devel] Re: cayley_graph: confusion between Additive and Multiplicative groups

2015-09-27 Thread Travis Scrimshaw
> > I see. Then I have two questions: > > - Isn't it a bit wrong to have .cayley_graph() and > .additive_cayley_graph()? Shouldn't we deprecate '.cayley_graph()` and > have .multiplicative_cayley_graph() and .additive_cayley_graph() > instead? (or cayley_graph_multiplicative/additive for > l

Re: [sage-devel] Sources of funding - perhaps computer manufacturers?

2015-09-27 Thread William Stein
On Sunday, September 27, 2015, rjf wrote: > Unless you can argue that having a Sage port will increase sales, then the > marketing types > won't care. > > Unless you can argue that giving money to a university is a better way to > pursue > a research topic of interest, then the research types wou

Re: [sage-devel] Sources of funding - perhaps computer manufacturers?

2015-09-27 Thread rjf
Unless you can argue that having a Sage port will increase sales, then the marketing types won't care. Unless you can argue that giving money to a university is a better way to pursue a research topic of interest, then the research types would rather pay in-house. If they were at all intereste

Re: [sage-devel] Re: cayley_graph: confusion between Additive and Multiplicative groups

2015-09-27 Thread Nathann Cohen
> So I would create a similar function for the category of AdditiveSemigroups > called additive_cayley_graph() to avoid any ambiguity and keeps with our > convention that (semi)groups without "additive" are treated as > multiplicative. I see. Then I have two questions: - Isn't it a bit wrong to h

[sage-devel] Re: cayley_graph: confusion between Additive and Multiplicative groups

2015-09-27 Thread Travis Scrimshaw
Hey Nathann, There are a couple of things that I currently see: - This is considered to be a ring, not an additive group (which has no such function to create a Cayley graph), so you are specifying the multiplicative generators. - Without parameters, I get an attribute error for creating the

[sage-devel] cayley_graph: confusion between Additive and Multiplicative groups

2015-09-27 Thread Nathann Cohen
Hello everybody, Playing with products of groups today, I was not able to obtain what I expected from the 'cayley graph' function, as it seems to use (by default) the multiplicative operation defined on my group (my group is groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10)) What do you think is the cayley graph ge

Re: [sage-devel] how should the expression relation test be named?

2015-09-27 Thread William Stein
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Samuel Lelievre wrote: > > > 2015-09-26 09:53:38 UTC+2, Ralf Stephan: >>> >>> The question is if we should call it is(). >> >> >> Impossible because it is a Python keyword. >> So, lacking a better proposal I'll stick to holds() > > > What about the following, where

Re: [sage-devel] how should the expression relation test be named?

2015-09-27 Thread Samuel Lelievre
2015-09-26 09:53:38 UTC+2, Ralf Stephan: > > The question is if we should call it is(). >> > > Impossible because it is a Python keyword. > So, lacking a better proposal I'll stick to holds() > What about the following, where ex is a symbolic equality or inequality: ex.can_hold() whether there

[sage-devel] Re: What can we assume about our C compiler

2015-09-27 Thread Ralf Stephan
Thanks all for the input. I boiled it down to this ticket: http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19298 -- 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+unsubsc