[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: Sage 3.4 OS 10.4 PowerPC Install Error

On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Georg S. Weber wrote: > > Hmmph, > > just having sent my post an re-reading it, the ..."usr/local/bin/"... > in my PATH suddenly seems not to be so innocent as I had thought. > Thank again for pointing this out to me. Good catch :-} I think the rule is that if you

[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: Sage 3.4 OS 10.4 PowerPC Install Error

On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Georg S. Weber wrote: > I'm sorry to hear this. > > What exactly is that "libintl.3.dylib" problem you mention about? I've lost track of the beginning of this thread, but if I understand things correctly, the problem is the following: You have a copy of libintl (

[sage-devel] Re: aftermath of Sage Days 14 (was: hyperelliptic curve constructor)

On Mar 17, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Carl Witty wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Justin Walker > wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: >>> Just a mini-warning so that we don't stomp on each other's foot:

[sage-devel] Re: aftermath of Sage Days 14 (was: hyperelliptic curve constructor)

On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > > Hi Alex! > > Just a mini-warning so that we don't stomp on each other's foot: I > made a couple very minor changes in the schemes code for the > categories (essentially in the parent's constructors/import lists). I > also moved the

[sage-devel] Re: hyperelliptic curve constructor question

On Mar 16, 2009, at 3:04 AM, John Cremona wrote: > > I'm worried when you say that the whole schemes directory is being > "scrubbed", since this could either mean "thoroughly cleaned up to it > is sparklingly clean and beautiful" or "deleted, erased completely" as > in a well-used blackboard. >

[sage-devel] Re: hyperelliptic curve constructor question

On Mar 16, 2009, at 3:04 AM, John Cremona wrote: > > I'm worried when you say that the whole schemes directory is being > "scrubbed", since this could either mean "thoroughly cleaned up to it > is sparklingly clean and beautiful" or "deleted, erased completely" as > in a well-used blackboard. >

[sage-devel] Re: hyperelliptic curve constructor question

Alex Ghitza might have some comments to add to this. On Mar 15, 2009, at 7:12 PM, David Harvey wrote: > On Mar 15, 10:00 pm, Justin Walker wrote: > >> The short answer is: we're working on it (as a part of an SD14 >> project). The whole schemes directory is being "

[sage-devel] Re: hyperelliptic curve constructor question

Hi, David, On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:54 PM, dmharvey wrote: > The constructor for hyperelliptic curves has the following signature: > > def HyperellipticCurve(f,h=None,names=None,PP=None) > > but the code doesn't seem to use the PP parameter anywhere, and there > are no examples of its use in the do

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.4.rc0

On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:58 AM, mabshoff wrote: > > Hello folks, > > finally there goes 3.4.rc0. Compared to alpha0 there have been plenty > of ReST fixes, improvements to the quadratic forms code and -sdist > fixes. We also finally did remove the doc repo and thereby reduced the > size of the sour

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.1.2.rc5/final released

On Sep 16, 2008, at 10:43 PM, mabshoff wrote: > > Hello folks, > > after 251 closed tickets here we go. This is rc5/final and likely > identical to the 3.1.2 release. There was an rc4 that never got > publicly announced since it had some Gremlins in it. As far as we know > there are no know buil

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.1.2.rc3 released

On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:48 PM, mabshoff wrote: > On Sep 14, 7:46 pm, Justin Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Justin Walker wrote: > > > >> Inspired by a post by William, I ran the "tut.tex" test, with the >> verbose

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.1.2.rc3 released

On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Justin Walker wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2008, at 7:59 AM, mabshoff wrote: > >> >> Hello folks, >> >> we are getting very close now. We fixed a bunch of blocker doctest >> issues and also fixed a long standing memleak in the number

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.1.2.rc3 released

On Sep 14, 2008, at 7:59 AM, mabshoff wrote: > > Hello folks, > > we are getting very close now. We fixed a bunch of blocker doctest > issues and also fixed a long standing memleak in the number field > code. Another memleak we fixed would bite you if you pickled a couple > ten thousand matrices

[sage-devel] Re: Quadratic Forms code

On Sep 14, 2008, at 4:53 PM, William Stein wrote: > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Justin Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] >> [2] I fussed over this while working on my patch, and finally decided >>to leave it alone. Is there any cause to be concerned about

[sage-devel] Quadratic Forms code

Hi, all, I'm looking at the patches John mentioned in another thread (). A couple of comments: 1) I'm removing Pari/Magma usage from the code 2) There is now some support for negative definite (using a new

[sage-devel] Re: Quadratic Forms patch

On Sep 14, 2008, at 2:58 PM, mabshoff wrote: > On Sep 14, 12:52 pm, Justin Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] >> Following John's observation, I'll follow the Mercurial approach (I'm >> not sure it makes any difference, but I might as well use the tools

[sage-devel] Re: Quadratic Forms patch

Hi, John, On Sep 14, 2008, at 2:43 PM, John Cremona wrote: > Two things: (1) Does your patch take into account the substantial > patches concerning binary quadratic forms already merged in 3.1.2, see > #3857 and #3946? Thanks for pointing that out. I've stayed away from the 3.1.2 fun, but I

[sage-devel] Quadratic Forms patch

Hi, all, I took a look at the quadratic forms code, to start getting back to working on Sage. I've made some additions and a few changes, and I have a patch ready for review. I welcome all comments. I've doc-tested it, and run some other tests of my own. It seems stable, but if anyone d

[sage-devel] Re: timing and debugging

Hi, Mike, On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Mike Hansen wrote: >> What's the difference between "==" and "is" (or, more to the point: >> where is this discussed)? > > This is a Python thing as "==" is equality testing and "is" is memory > address testing. For example, > > sage: a = 2 > sage: b = 2 >

[sage-devel] Re: timing and debugging

On Sep 10, 2008, at 7:35 AM, Jason Grout wrote: > Justin Walker wrote: >> >> On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Jason Grout wrote: >>> Jason Merrill wrote: >>>> On Sep 9, 6:35 pm, Justin Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Hi, all, >>

[sage-devel] Re: timing and debugging

Hi, Mike, On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Mike Hansen wrote: >> What's the difference between "==" and "is" (or, more to the point: >> where is this discussed)? > > This is a Python thing as "==" is equality testing and "is" is memory > address testing. For example, Thanks for the quick tutorial;

[sage-devel] Re: timing and debugging

On Sep 9, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Sep 9, 6:35 pm, Justin Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [snip] >> I can't tell if this is just an artifact of some funky debugging >> interaction (am I debugging the debugger?), or whether this

[sage-devel] Re: timing and debugging

On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > > Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Sep 9, 6:35 pm, Justin Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hi, all, >>> >> There may be a more pythonic way to do this--I'm just trying to >> translate som

[sage-devel] Re: timing and debugging

Hey, Mike, Thanks for this... On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Mike Hansen wrote: > I'm not sure about the other stuff, but you should do "is None" > instead of "== None" since your times are so low. > > sage: a = 2 > sage: timeit("a == None") > 625 loops, best of 3: 420 µs per loop > sage: timeit("

[sage-devel] timing and debugging

Hi, all, Whilst looking at some code, I noticed that a computation was being repeated on each call, although the inputs to the computation never changed (these were values used to define an instance of a class). I decided to cache the value and return it rather than recomputing it. To s

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-support] Re: quaternions

On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:47 PM, John Cremona wrote: > > Although Justin's solution certainly works, one might consider adding > a "real_part()" function to the quaternion class. But it would not do > to call the function "real_part" since of course it depends on the > ground field (which in the exa

[sage-devel] Re: SAGE 2.9.2 released

On Jan 5, 2008, at 7:16 AM, mabshoff wrote: > > Hello folks, > > Sage 2.9.2 has been released. It is available at > > http://sagemath.org/download.html > > The following people contributed to this release: Upgrade from 2.9.1.1 on Mac OS X (10.5.1, Core Duo) without problems. Tested w

[sage-devel] SAGE on Leopard

I figured I'd give this a try. The first to go is 'flint', with this error: g++ -single_module -fPIC -dynamiclib -o libflint.dylib mpn_extras.o Z.o memory-\ manager.o Z_mpn.o ZmodF.o ZmodF_mul.o ZmodF_mul-tuning.o fmpz.o fmpz_poly.o mpz\ _poly-tuning.o mpz_poly.o ZmodF_poly.o -lgmp ld: dup