On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 4:10:29 PM UTC-7, Reimundo Heluani wrote:
>
> that's the second push -f in a day if this was a large patch that
> people had worked on I'd be killed :).
>
Most tickets for Sage are short-lived feature branches with a single
author. Rebasing and other forms of rewriti
On May 15, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 3:35:05 PM UTC-7, Reimundo Heluani wrote:
is my understanding correct that the right workflow is to rebase #29691 on
top of #29690 and push again?
Yes.
Thanks! that's the second push -f in a day if this was a large patch th
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 3:35:05 PM UTC-7, Reimundo Heluani wrote:
>
> is my understanding correct that the right workflow is to rebase #29691
> on
> top of #29690 and push again?
>
Yes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To u
On May 15, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 2:19:11 PM UTC-7, Reimundo Heluani wrote:
I wanted to test a couple of very
simple patches #29690 and #29691. The latter depends on the former. #29690
passes without problems but #29691 fails tests as if the patch from #29690
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 2:19:11 PM UTC-7, Reimundo Heluani wrote:
>
> I wanted to test a couple of very
> simple patches #29690 and #29691. The latter depends on the former. #29690
> passes without problems but #29691 fails tests as if the patch from #29690
> were not applied.
If #29691 de
by the way, one can use GitHub Actions to test patches - just push an
appropriate branch to your GitHub fork of Sage, and if Actions are enabled
on your repo, you will get it tested on various systems.
On Fri, 15 May 2020, 22:19 'Reimundo Heluani' via sage-devel, <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wr
Hello, I started today running a patchbot. I wanted to test a couple of very
simple patches #29690 and #29691. The latter depends on the former. #29690
passes without problems but #29691 fails tests as if the patch from #29690
were not applied.
Now here is were I screwed up. Since #29691 neede
I fear you will have to do a lot by hand in sage. You can reduce a
projective point modulo p^k as below, but the output will have to be a list
of elements in Z/p^kZ, since projective spaces are not defined over general
rings as far as I am aware.
What I meant is that you can actually work in E
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the advice, but I can't seem to get this to work either. I get
the error "ValueError: element must have non-negative valuation in order to
compute residue".
Any idea how to make this work without errors? Or should I just give up and
use magma instead?
E=EllipticCurve(Qp(2
I think I can explain this.
Basically, Sage does *not* support elliptic curves over rings which are not
integral domains, and in particular does not support them over Z/NZ except
for N prime. BUT at some opint in the past it had been possible to
demonstrate the elliptic curve factorization me
Dear Daniel
indeed elliptic curves over rings (what should be called technically
Weierstrass equations with non-zero discriminant, instead of unit
discriminant) are rather useless in Sage.
I would recommend to work with 2-adics in your case and to reduce modulo 4
in the end. You could work over
11 matches
Mail list logo
