On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Samuel Lelièvre wrote:
This post is about the multiple versions of SageMath's documentation online
and the associated problems of its good indexing in search engines and of
people finding up-to-date vs obsolete information on sagemath.org. - -
There are also local copies a
This is now https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21227
--
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group
On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 15:35:29 UTC-6, leif wrote:
>
> Orthogonal to that, but also annoying is that we do no longer get
> notifications when a ticket gets closed.
>
> Is this a bug or a feature?
>
>
> -leif
>
>
Ping? I definitely like getting notifications that a ticket is closed,
hopeful
'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote:
> Please Help! I just installed develop, which is currently sage 7.4
> beta0, but this broke my beloved sage_mode. All in and output except
> the banner is unreadable!
>
> I cannot live (well, to be honest: work) without emacs and sage_mode :-(
1) I /guess/ it s
This post is about the multiple versions of SageMath's documentation online
and the associated problems of its good indexing in search engines and of
people finding up-to-date vs obsolete information on sagemath.org.
It is split into three parts.
1. SageMath's reference manual
currently doc.
Please Help! I just installed develop, which is currently sage 7.4 beta0,
but this broke my beloved sage_mode. All in and output except the banner
is unreadable!
I cannot live (well, to be honest: work) without emacs and sage_mode :-(
Martin
┌─
leif wrote:
> leif wrote:
>> Vincent Delecroix wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I wanted to change the default milestone to 7-4 on our trac server
>>
>> Which is "ours"?
>>
>> I already changed it on sage-trac a few days ago.
>
> Oooops, indeed, now it's 7.3 again. WTF?
>
>
>>> (in
>>> Admin->Miles
ok, we could put it there. The binary qf version is called reduced_form()
so we could call this one reduced_form() as well, which has the benefit of
avoiding the naming conflict.
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 2:41:10 PM UTC-5, John Cremona wrote:
>
> On 11 August 2016 at 20:36, Ben Hutz >
> w
On 11 August 2016 at 20:36, Ben Hutz wrote:
> Yes, but 'reduce' doesn't really make sense except on homogeneous 2 var
> polynomials. So I think under that logic it would better fit in
> multivariable polynomials (which we considered). That avoids the whole
> binary form class versus qudaratic form
Yes, but 'reduce' doesn't really make sense except on homogeneous 2 var
polynomials. So I think under that logic it would better fit in
multivariable polynomials (which we considered). That avoids the whole
binary form class versus qudaratic forms class issue. Would that be
preferable?
On Thur
See this issue:
https://github.com/ipython/ipython/issues/7827
I have this annoying behavior in a newly install instance of SageMath 7.2.
I would like it to remain centered as in normal "display math" style.
In the file:
/usr/lib/sagemath/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/
notebook/static/styl
On 11 August 2016 at 20:03, Ben Hutz wrote:
> Yes we see that the quadratic form folder contains all the quadratic
> implementations. inside that there is some specific functionality for binary
> quadratic forms (binary_qf.py). However, Lauren's function is for binary
> forms of *any* degree. As
leif wrote:
> Vincent Delecroix wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I wanted to change the default milestone to 7-4 on our trac server
>
> Which is "ours"?
>
> I already changed it on sage-trac a few days ago.
Oooops, indeed, now it's 7.3 again. WTF?
>> (in
>> Admin->Milestones). However after clicking
Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I wanted to change the default milestone to 7-4 on our trac server
Which is "ours"?
I already changed it on sage-trac a few days ago.
> (in
> Admin->Milestones). However after clicking on the button "Apply changes"
> on the bottom of the page the server
Yes we see that the quadratic form folder contains all the quadratic
implementations. inside that there is some specific functionality for
binary quadratic forms (binary_qf.py). However, Lauren's function is for
binary forms of *any* degree. As such, it doesn't really belong under the
'quadrat
Dear all,
I wanted to change the default milestone to 7-4 on our trac server (in
Admin->Milestones). However after clicking on the button "Apply changes"
on the bottom of the page the server does not respond. Anybody can help?
Cheers,
Vincent
--
You received this message because you are subs
Yes, you need to update sage
$ sage --package create -h
usage: sage --package create [-h] [--version VERSION] [--tarball TARBALL]
[--type TYPE]
[package_name]
positional arguments:
package_name Package name. Default: fix all packag
'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote:
> I get
>
> :~$ sage --package create fricas --version 1.2.7 --tarball
> fricas-1.2.7.tar.bz2 --type experimental
> ERROR [cmdline|run:74]: unknown subcommand: create
>
> with
>
> ┌┐
> │ SageMath
I get
:~$ sage --package create fricas --version 1.2.7 --tarball
fricas-1.2.7.tar.bz2 --type experimental
ERROR [cmdline|run:74]: unknown subcommand: create
with
┌┐
│ SageMath version 7.3.beta4, Release Date: 2016-06-12
leif wrote:
> 'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote:
>> Are http://www.sagemath.org/git-developer-guide/packaging.html the
>> instructions I should follow?
>
> If in doubt, this is probably more recent:
>
> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/packaging.html#packaging-third-party-code
>
> (It say
'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote:
> Are http://www.sagemath.org/git-developer-guide/packaging.html the
> instructions I should follow?
If in doubt, this is probably more recent:
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/packaging.html#packaging-third-party-code
(It says version 7.3 rather than 1.
Are http://www.sagemath.org/git-developer-guide/packaging.html the
instructions I should follow?
Martin
Am Mittwoch, 10. August 2016 18:55:55 UTC+2 schrieb Dima Pasechnik:
>
> Also, we have an old version of FriCAS, current is 1.2.7.
> I just opened
>
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21209 (u
Erik Bray wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>> FWIW, on Cygwin we used to use the Cephes library for a while. (No idea
>>> whether it now replaced libm or parts of it got merged into libm
>>> upstream, or none of that.)
>>>
>>> But the result you get presumably also
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> FWIW, on Cygwin we used to use the Cephes library for a while. (No idea
>> whether it now replaced libm or parts of it got merged into libm
>> upstream, or none of that.)
>>
>> But the result you get presumably also depends on whether libm
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 12:15:32 PM UTC+1, leif wrote:
>
> Erik Bray wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Thierry Dumont
> > > wrote:
> >> Le 10/08/2016 à 13:38, Erik Bray a écrit :
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Sorry if this has been discussed ad-infinitum before--I looked aroun
Erik Bray wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Thierry Dumont
> wrote:
>> Le 10/08/2016 à 13:38, Erik Bray a écrit :
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Sorry if this has been discussed ad-infinitum before--I looked around
>>> a bit but didn't find a definitive answer.
>>>
>>> I have one (well at least one)
This is now
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21221
Cheers,
Martin
Jean-Pierre Flori writes:
> Yes!
>
> Did you open a ticket for this?
--
_pgp: https://keybase.io/martinralbrecht
_www: https://martinralbrecht.wordpress.com
_jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de
_otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEB
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Thierry Dumont
wrote:
> Le 10/08/2016 à 13:38, Erik Bray a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry if this has been discussed ad-infinitum before--I looked around
>> a bit but didn't find a definitive answer.
>>
>> I have one (well at least one) test that's failing on Cygwi
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2016-08-10 13:38, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> 1) Is it worth investigating the reason for the difference?
>
>
> No, but it is worth determining how bad the error is. In all cases, I would
> say that an error of less than 1 ulp is totally accep
29 matches
Mail list logo
