> On 5/04/2017, at 11:25, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:01:50 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
> With the current system you could install and then remove
> some essential files manually and the doctesting framework
> would still try to use it. It is installed according to t
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:01:50 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
>
> With the current system you could install and then remove
> some essential files manually and the doctesting framework
> would still try to use it. It is installed according to the
> packaging system after all. runtime testing
> On 5/04/2017, at 10:41, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:24:52 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
> Let’s be clear, I could ship a list of possible
> optional packages supported in sage-on-gentoo
> but any checking of package availability would
> have to go through the the distri
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:24:52 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
> Let’s be clear, I could ship a list of possible
> optional packages supported in sage-on-gentoo
> but any checking of package availability would
> have to go through the the distribution package
> manager.
>
> Or through the sa
> On 5/04/2017, at 08:42, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:00:31 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
> (2) while being just one use, is probably not replaceable.
> Not in this form at the very least.
>
> How can one get the appropriate information in sage-on-gentoo? If we compare
>
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:00:31 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
> (2) while being just one use, is probably not replaceable.
> Not in this form at the very least.
>
How can one get the appropriate information in sage-on-gentoo? If we
compare the mechanisms that work in the different scenarios
> On 5/04/2017, at 01:12, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> I am starting this debate because of discussion I had earlier
> in #22670. It was pointed out to me that there was no policy
> of avoiding `sage.misc.package` and I would very much want one.
>
>
> This seems very reasonable, given how much wo
Hi John,
Thanks for your answer.
On 04/04/2017 16:22, John Cremona wrote:
On 4 April 2017 at 15:02, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I am currently solving huge sparse linear systems over rationals (up to
millions of equations and variables). The equation are act
On 04/04/2017 19:05, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:02:46 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
Dear all,
I am currently solving huge sparse linear systems over rationals (up to
millions of equations and variables). The equation are actually
integral, but the solutions are ration
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:02:46 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am currently solving huge sparse linear systems over rationals (up to
> millions of equations and variables). The equation are actually
> integral, but the solutions are rationals.
>
> Sage is doing pretty go
Hi,
If you are a developer and not aware of this, check this:
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22588
--
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+u
Be aware that this is not the mentor list, but the public list. Please
don't discuss content of the submitted proposals here.
-- Stefan
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 6:25:45 AM UTC-5, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Harald.
> I did not realize so many of them were for my project.
> I only s
On 4 April 2017 at 15:02, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am currently solving huge sparse linear systems over rationals (up to
> millions of equations and variables). The equation are actually integral,
> but the solutions are rationals.
>
> Sage is doing pre
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:02:46 PM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am currently solving huge sparse linear systems over rationals (up to
> millions of equations and variables). The equation are actually
> integral, but the solutions are rationals.
>
> Sage is doing pretty go
Dear all,
I am currently solving huge sparse linear systems over rationals (up to
millions of equations and variables). The equation are actually
integral, but the solutions are rationals.
Sage is doing pretty good up to dimension 1000 with the generic
solve_right method. Where should I look
> I am starting this debate because of discussion I had earlier
> in #22670. It was pointed out to me that there was no policy
> of avoiding `sage.misc.package` and I would very much want one.
>
>
This seems very reasonable, given how much work is going into such
packaging. As a first approx
Thanks Harald.
I did not realize so many of them were for my project.
I only saw one and it was junk.
I'll check the other ones but have little hope.
Hopefully other mentors will be much luckier!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
T
Maybe the model should be its *cousin *the plot2d page?
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/plotting/sage/plot/plot.html
El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 12:25:37 (UTC+2), jhonrubia6 escribió:
>
> I'll take on this ticket (I didn't realize the plot3d/examples file when I
> reviewed this docum
I'll take on this ticket (I didn't realize the plot3d/examples file when I
reviewed this documentation)
What do you expect of those opening words? a hyperlinked list of objects
included in the file would be the entry level I guess.
Or maybe, are you looking for a major 3d documentation rebuild?
Update:
There are 29 proposals, some of them are junk, but I think there are also
good ones. If you can, please help reviewing them. We have until April 24th.
https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/timeline
-- harald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
20 matches
Mail list logo
