I faced the same error, which appears to be caused by gcc-5.3.0. After
downgrading to gcc-4.9.3, brial compiled successfully.
I am now stuck with a segmentation fault related to doc-html.
Am Mittwoch, 30. März 2016 19:15:14 UTC+2 schrieb Witold Żarowski:
>
> I can confirm that I was able to compi
Am 2016-04-04 um 18:02 schrieb Peter Luschny:
> > Sage seems to use the definition from Concrete Mathematics by Graham,
>> Knuth and Patashnik:
>> That gives e.g.
>> sage: binomial(-4, 5)
>> -56
>
> Right. GKP call it "upper negation". If you look at my demo-function
> you will see that t
Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Dept.
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 1:52:44 PM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Dept.
>
>
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:25:35 PM UTC+2, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
>>
>> Would SageMath Software be better? Isn
Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Dept.
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:25:35 PM UTC+2, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
>
> Would SageMath Software be better? Isn't SageMath Mathematics Software
> a little redundant?
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
On 4/1/2016 1:34 AM, Daniel Krenn wrote:
> I suggest something like:
>
> @Manual{SageMath:2016:7.1,
>key = {SageMath},
>author = {The SageMath Developers},
>title ={{SageMath} {M}athematics {S}oftware ({V}ersion 7.1)},
>note = {\url{http://www.sagemat
Whichever ticket it is, after checking it out, you might try "git merge
develop" (assuming your "develop" branch is reasonably up to date). There
have been some recent changes in docbuilding, for example the location of
the built documentation, that could be causing problems when you use
branc
there is no git branch on #16804. Which ticket did you mean?
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 6:14:53 PM UTC+1, jhonrubia6 wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I've just checkout the branch ticket #16804, and I get an error building
> the documentation I can not clean (tried $make doc-clean unsuccesfully).
> some clue?
Hi,
I've just checkout the branch ticket #16804, and I get an error building
the documentation I can not clean (tried $make doc-clean unsuccesfully).
some clue?
[reference] loading pickled environment... not yet created
[reference] Compiling the master document
[reference] WARNING: intersphinx
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:39:42 AM UTC-7, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-03 20:03, Peter Luschny wrote:
> > I have already reported the unsatisfactory state of the binomial
> > function as implemented in Sage on 'Ask Sage' and had opened
> > a request for enhancement with ticket #17123
> Sage seems to use the definition from Concrete Mathematics by Graham,
> Knuth and Patashnik:
> That gives e.g.
> sage: binomial(-4, 5)
> -56
Right. GKP call it "upper negation". If you look at my demo-function
you will see that this condition is preserved in the suggested extension
(case 3).
On 2016-04-03 20:03, Peter Luschny wrote:
> I have already reported the unsatisfactory state of the binomial
> function as implemented in Sage on 'Ask Sage' and had opened
> a request for enhancement with ticket #17123.
On this ticket there were arguments against this change of the default
behav
Sage seems to use the definition from Concrete Mathematics by Graham,
Knuth and Patashnik:
binomial(r, k) = r*(r-1)*...*(r-k+1)/(k * (k-1) *...* 1)
if k >= 0 and r any real number, and
binomial(r, k) = 0
if k < 0
That gives e.g.
sage: binomial(-4, 5)
-56
Though Peter's suggestion seems
I haven't thought about this carefully enough to have an opinion yet. But
definitely -1 to the status quo! If we don't implement binomial(n, k) in a
mathematically meaningful way for k < 0, it would be better to raise a
ValueError rather than silently returning 0.
Kiran
On Sunday, April 3, 201
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Sebastien Gouezel
wrote:
>
>
> Le lundi 4 avril 2016 11:48:34 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think this approach is mainly useful for newcomers. The
>> majority of the problems you mentioned came in due to already having
>> various bits of this installed
Le lundi 4 avril 2016 11:48:34 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit :
>
>
> Yes, I think this approach is mainly useful for newcomers. The
> majority of the problems you mentioned came in due to already having
> various bits of this installed. I'm not quite sure I understand the
point about latex.
>
Thanks for giving it a try!
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Sebastien Gouezel
wrote:
> Just tried it (on Windows 10 Pro 64 bits). In the end, it works, but I had
> to work a little bit for this:
>
> - when installing docker, it removed my git and installed its own git
> instead, without asking fo
Just tried it (on Windows 10 Pro 64 bits). In the end, it works, but I had
to work a little bit for this:
- when installing docker, it removed my git and installed its own git
instead, without asking for anything. A little bit rude, as I liked my
version better...
- more serious, the sagemath
17 matches
Mail list logo
