It seems like you've done a good job with it anyway. Thanks for the
description.
Bill.
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 20:46:21 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>
> mppp also uses a small value optimisation. The number of limbs that can be
> stored without dynamic memory allocation can be selected at compile
Hi Daniel,
On 2017-07-14, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>>> R. = PolynomialRing(QQ, 'lex')
>> That's not what you want.
>> [...]
>> Instead you have to do
>> sage: R. = PolynomialRing(QQ, order='lex')
>> (i.e., specify what parameter is 'lex' being assigned to)
>
> What does the polynomial ring construct
On 2017-07-14 16:41, Simon King wrote:
> On 2017-07-14, Johannes Schwab wrote:
>> Here is the code:
>> R. = PolynomialRing(QQ, 'lex')
> That's not what you want.
> [...]
> Instead you have to do
> sage: R. = PolynomialRing(QQ, order='lex')
> (i.e., specify what parameter is 'lex' being assigned
Hi Johannes,
On 2017-07-14, Johannes Schwab wrote:
> Here is the code:
> R. = PolynomialRing(QQ, 'lex')
That's not what you want.
sage: R.term_order()
Degree reverse lexicographic term order
Instead you have to do
sage: R. = PolynomialRing(QQ, order='lex')
(i.e., specify what parameter is
Hello,
I think I stumbled across a bug in groebner_basis(). The example below
doesn't generate the unique reduced Groebner basis of the ideal generated
by f and g, but instead the set
[y^3 + 2*y^2 - x - y, x^2 + 2*y, x*y - y^2 + 1]
is returned.
This set isn't a Groebner basis at all. The corr
I had the same issue with openblas, but on a Thinkpad 11e with an intel
Celeron N2940 processor. Setting OPENBLAS_CONFIGURE="TARGET=ATOM" fixed
this for me as well.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/-Exvx0bane8/9kC8hBEFBwAJ
I assumed this was limited to lower-end processors like the C
Well, I have successfully built Sage on my 11e—over a period of several
hours! :-) Right now I'm running the tests with ./sage --testall to make
sure everything is a-ok, but cli Sage starts, as does the notebook, so it
looks good so far.
Maybe I'll try building the dev version of openblas on th
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde
wrote:
> Thanks a lot for reporting! We *really* appreciate any feedback from
> using Sage in classes: on bugs, designs and feature requests.
>
> This bug is now #23433. I'll push a patch momentarily.
>
Thank you, Johan!
> Best,
> Johan Ros
Thanks a lot for reporting! We *really* appreciate any feedback from
using Sage in classes: on bugs, designs and feature requests.
This bug is now #23433. I'll push a patch momentarily.
Best,
Johan Rosenkilde
Dima Pasechnik writes:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 11:43:18 AM UTC+1, David Joyne
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 11:43:18 AM UTC+1, David Joyner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:59 AM, 'B. L.' via sage-devel
> wrote:
> > Dear Sage-Developers,
> >
> > I'd like to report two issues that I came across when working with the
> > coding theory classes of SAGE.
> >
> > The
Indeed, OPENBLAS_CONFIGURE="TARGET=ATOM" is a catch-all x86_64 processors
target.
Perhaps one can try the development version of openblas on these processors
(from https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS)
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 12:29:12 AM UTC+1, Christopher Phoenix wrote:
>
> I'm building Sage 7
11 matches
Mail list logo
