Nicolas,
> This __main__ trick is only for when you define python
> functions "interactively" (e.g. in doctests), and you want to fake
> them being picklable for TestSuite's pickling tests.
Yes, but there are cases in which it is desirable for the code
to create pure "orphan" functions, say, to h
Nicolas,
There needs to be some serious thought about
computability in Hom categories.. In what categories can one automatically
compute the inverse of an
invertible map, tell whether a morphism is zero, optimize composition of
morphisms, etc.
The TestSuites should be smart enough to automatica
Hi Nicolas!
> > sage: f._test_pickling()
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > ...
> > PicklingError: Can't pickle : attribute lookup
> > __builtin__.function failed
>
> For this one, you can fake ``on_basis'' to be picklable using:
>
> sage: import __ma
Is there an easy way to get rid of the following TestSuite failures?
Or does it require an overhaul of how sage handles morphisms?
I understand why the first two tests fail.
--Mark
sage: F=CombinatorialFreeModule(ZZ,[1])
sage: def on_basis(x):
... return x
sa
Paul,
> Instead, I would advocate using a declarative domain specific language built
> for semi-formalizing
> mathematics
The appeal of this paradigm is evident. It addresses
a fundamentally important issue: how to structure the development process to
encourage the code to reflect the mathemati
Tried to build version 5.2 from source. The make failed.
Computer: Fujitsu Lifebook T900
Operating System: uname -a returns
3.5.0-2.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Jul 30 14:48:59 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64
GNU/Linux
(part of the error log follows)
--
Simon,
Many thanks for your patient answers.
> > However if all coercion maps involved are injective then
> > can't I expect == to be preserved?
>
> Why do you think that all coercions are injective? The coercion from ZZ
> to GF(2) is certainly not injective.
I meant not that all coercions were
Thanks, Simon, for the explanation of coercions.
> > I encountered some weird behavior in LaurentPolynomialRing, such as
> > the nontransitivity of the '==' relation.
>
> Note that it is virtually impossible to have a transitive ==-relation
> that at the same time provides certain mathematical fea
Bug report:
I encountered some weird behavior in LaurentPolynomialRing, such as
the
nontransitivity of the '==' relation.
Also, factoring in the fraction field caused an error. See below.
Feature request:
I would like elements of the fraction field F of a Laurent polynomial
ring S
(say with base
Suppose I want to create a custom subclass of a polynomial ring.
>From which class should it inherit? It should not care so much about
the
eventual base ring.
I'm a sage development newbie.
Where can I read about the class hierarchy for sage polynomials?
I'm a little confused at the organizational
Sorry to be spamming everyone.
I have had very consistent trouble building sage from source:
versions 4.8, 5.0beta7, and 5.0beta8 all failed to build in the same
kind of way.
I can build and run the prepackaged version of
sage-4.8-linux-64bit-fedora_release_15_lovelock_-x86_64-Linux
Any help wi
11 matches
Mail list logo
