Dear all,
I've been using Sage to try to display some graphical formulas, containing
sums of pictures of graphs multiped by coefficients. The idea is to have
something looking like the attached picture.
My idea for achieving this was to create a set of symbolic variables, one
per graph, with t
> You are making several assertions
>
> 1) Sage source code is of good quality
> 2) We do not test "external packages"
> 3) Adding and maintaining source code in Sage is simple
>
> Let me discuss them in order.
>
> In my opinion, the most powerful part of Sage comes from its third party
> l
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:27:28 AM UTC-5, Marc Masdeu wrote:
>
> @Simon maybe it would help the OP if you elaborated on why the group
> cohomology code was not included in the standard Sage...
>
> @Nikhil I would suggest that you concentrate in writing useful code in
> ergodic theory. How
TL;DR One of the biggest questions for me is should gens for a polynomial
ring with 0 variables return (1,) or ()? IMO, it should be (1,) in line
with ZZ/QQ/etc. as otherwise it suggests too much that it is the trivial
ring.
IMO, gens can return an infinite object, but of course, it would not b
you can merge individual commits into a branch by doing `git cherry-pick
`.
This should suffice for you to create a branch you like (but do read more
docs on git...)
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:20:24 PM UTC+1, jhonrubia6 wrote:
>
> Finally I've found the error but I do not know how to unra
@Simon maybe it would help the OP if you elaborated on why the group
cohomology code was not included in the standard Sage...
@Nikhil I would suggest that you concentrate in writing useful code in
ergodic theory. How to distribute it is secondary, IMO. For ease of
development, you definitely do
On 27 July 2017 at 10:01, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2017-07-26 00:46, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote:
>
>> Would it be worth creating a fork of PARI
>>
>
> What *exactly* do you mean with that?
>
> I feel like "fork" is just a word and you can already consider the
> PARI-in-Sage t
On 25/07/2017 22:44, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2017-07-25 22:34, Ximin Luo wrote:
Do you think it would be feasible for Sage "standard" to maintain
compatibility with both PARI stable and the development version?
I have not actually tried, so it is hard to tell right now.
Given the past histor
On 2017-07-26 00:46, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote:
Would it be worth creating a fork of PARI
What *exactly* do you mean with that?
I feel like "fork" is just a word and you can already consider the
PARI-in-Sage to be a fork of PARI.
you would avoid the problems of a distri
