When you say "computing the irreps", it is not clear what it is about the
irreps you are computing. I guess it is the dimension?
On Monday, 5 March 2012 10:50:20 UTC, Dox wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> a couple of weeks ago I wrote a small program for computing the irreps
> of a Lie group,
> http://sa
On Friday, 2 March 2012 17:12:04 UTC, daveloeffler wrote:
>
> There are already a couple of images in the documentation of the
> "homology" Sage module that nobody has complained about so far. I
> don't think this is an issue. I wouldn't want to read document
On Mar 2, 2:48 pm, "Georg S. Weber"
wrote:
>
> But the "no binary objects whatsoever" criticism from Harald is
> justified (due to the mercurial history, even erasing .png files later
> will not help --- the increase in size will last forever), as well as
> the question of maintainability.
There
On Jan 18, 2:17 pm, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 at 10:19AM -0800, Volker Braun wrote:
> > I consider it a bug that Python's testsuite fails on many systems even
> > though the resulting python install is perfectly usable for our purposes.
> > The Python spkg-check should be changed to
On Jan 16, 11:13 am, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-01-16 11:57, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:> I think if you produce a
> different version, then it should have a
> > The whole idea of making "beta" releases public is for people to be able
> > to report bugs.
>
> Of course people can report bugs,
On Jan 4, 5:26 am, William Stein wrote:
>
> I agree with you Michael, though he expressed himself unclearly. The
> tickets was not about fixing doctests anywhere in sage (which your email
> strongly suggested!) but about adding arbitrary checks to the doctest
> framework.
+1. If there are file
On Jan 1, 10:42 pm, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2012 7:18:20 AM UTC-8, daveloeffler wrote:
>
> > I get an error when doing a parallel build with SAGE_CHECK set. See
> > below for the relevant part of the output. The problem seems to be
> > that the M
On Jan 1, 10:42 pm, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2012 7:18:20 AM UTC-8, daveloeffler wrote:
>
> > I get an error when doing a parallel build with SAGE_CHECK set. See
> > below for the relevant part of the output. The problem seems to be
> > that the M
On Jan 1, 4:38 pm, Volker Braun wrote:
> I'm only surprised that you get this far; I thought pretty much all builds
> with SAGE_CHECK='yes' die while testing Python because some optional
> modules don't get compiled.
Yes, well, test_distutils fails for me and always has done. I'm just
puzzled t
Here's another strange thing: with the new Python 2.7.2 spkg, if
SAGE_CHECK is set, the whole Python test suite gets run *twice over*!
Is this deliberate?
Here is the tail end of the first test run and the beginning of the
second:
test_zipimport_support
test_zlib
343 tests OK.
1 test failed:
I get an error when doing a parallel build with SAGE_CHECK set. See
below for the relevant part of the output. The problem seems to be
that the M4RIE test suite requires NTL and Givaro to have already been
built, but that Sage's build scripts don't know about these
dependencies. Installing the Giva
A patch for this is now ready for review: see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12233.
David
On Dec 24, 3:44 pm, daveloeffler wrote:
> The problem is that these functions only get called if the pickled
> object, at pickling time, implemented a __reduce__ method. Otherwise,
>
The problem is that these functions only get called if the pickled
object, at pickling time, implemented a __reduce__ method. Otherwise,
a totally different pickling and unpickling system using the
__getstate__ and __setstate__ methods is used. But it turns out that
the problem could be solved by i
I'm working on a project (started at SD35 last week) to reimplement
the class for elements of SL2Z and its subgroups
(sage.modular.arithgroup.arithgroup_element.ArithmeticSubgroupElement)
in Cython. This will provide a substantial speedup on arithmetic
operations, which is good news for lots of mod
On Dec 3, 10:45 am, Chappman wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 4:28 am, "Justin C. Walker" wrote:
> >
> > It's still not clear (at least to me) what you mean by this. Do you want Q
> > to be a copy of U, and be able to change, say, U, without changing Q?
>
> Yes, thats what I am trying to do. Is there a me
On Oct 6, 5:25 pm, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Clearly, the
> slowdown of elltest2.sage is not due to #9138. Also Singular does not
> cause a slowdown.
>
I know what the problem is here -- see my post on sage-nt.
> elltest2.sage:
> sage-4.7.2.alpha2: 19.6
> baseline: 63.
Hi Simon,
I posted some profiler output on the sage-nt list earlier today. The
methods "category.join" and "category.hom_category" were getting
called a ludicrous number of times (several thousand in the course of
a single elliptic curve calculation), which was not the case in
pre-4.7.2.alpha3. Ar
On Sep 30, 5:47 pm, Martin Raum
wrote:
> I am sorry that you feel this ticket wasn't reviewed correctly. I
> would hope William's policy of not being mean is adopted also by you.
I apologise for my harshness yesterday. As you can probably
understand, I have put a great deal of work into Sage's m
I just played around a bit with the new code for Farey symbols in
4.7.2.alpha3 (from ticket #11709).
I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to make a public stand here:
I think that this code should not have been given a positive review.
Among other things, the patch's documentation makes absol
Thanks! The info on the wiki page about stopping the background ecm
jobs is very useful as well.
David
On Sep 16, 10:43 pm, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2011 2:17:17 PM UTC-7, daveloeffler wrote:
>
> > Right, so now I have a skynet account, and I tried to gr
ases!
Regards, David
On Sep 11, 5:29 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:45 AM, daveloeffler wrote:
> > Is there a Solaris box currently available which Sage developers can
> > use for testing their code?
>
> There are two Solaris Sparc SunOS boxes working on s
Is there a Solaris box currently available which Sage developers can
use for testing their code? At one point t2.math.washington.edu was in
use for this, but it seems to have been unavailable for some while.
I ask because of patch #10335, which had a positive review some while
back, but which turn
On May 15, 11:02 pm, Robert Miller wrote:
> Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> > On 2011-05-13 07:24, Tom Boothby wrote:
> >> Bottom line: I think this was handled wrong. If a ticket's been
> >> merged, unless it's found to have a genuine flaw, it should supersede
> >> (IMO) tickets with positive reviews
> > I just moved a fresh build in this way (using scp -pr, though source
> > and destination were local) and the first time I run Sage from the new
> > location is starts up normally.
>
> I can't reproduce this.
> Have you actually moved anything?
I ran into something like this once too. I can't
On Mar 13, 6:34 pm, "Justin C. Walker" wrote:
> Perhaps I should have expected this, but
>
> sage: R=Integers(5)
> sage: L=R.list()
> sage: L
> [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
> ## I just want the *non-zero* elements:
> sage: L.__delitem__(0)
> sage: L
> [1, 2, 3, 4]
> ## Ah!
> ## Uh-oh
> sage: R.list()
> [1,
On Mar 13, 5:04 pm, Christian Stump wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to get matrix groups for the universal cyclotomic field
> (which I am currently implementing) working. I encountered two
> problems in this context:
>
> 1. the method MatrixGroup_gap.list contains the lines
>
> a = F.prime
On Jan 29, 5:31 am, William Stein wrote:
> If every person reading responded with a paragraph about what they've
> been up to related to sage this month, then maybe we could get to 1000
> messages by the end of the month!
I wrote code for computing local components of modular forms, based on
my
On Jan 17, 4:12 am, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> ok, it works now for me.
>
Seems to be down again. I got "ProgrammingError: could not write to
hash-join temporary file: No space left on device".
David
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
On Jan 16, 11:54 am, koffie wrote:
> To bad nobody still noticed suggestion number 2
> 2. Could we maybe add some sort of "check for common bad practice" to
> the doctest or coverage framework, I think something like pylint with
> some sage specific plugins could be very usefull in the reviewi
On Jan 7, 1:48 pm, koffie wrote:
> In several places in the documentation it says you shouldn't close
> tickets if you have never done the release management.
>
> Since it's so trivial to fix maybe we should change the needed rights
> to change the
> status to prevent someone unknowing to close
On Dec 30, 1:41 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> And otherwise it does a "best guess" kind of approach, which is decent
> (especially if there is only one patch :). In any case, I don't think
> people would mind getting a "nag" that the patchbot got confused,
> indicating that it might be worth your
On Dec 30, 10:01 am, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 30 Dez., 10:21, daveloeffler wrote:
>
> > I can see a slight problem with this. At present there's no mechanism
> > to explain to the patchbot exactly which patches to apply. So if you
> > have (say) a
On Dec 29, 6:52 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Simon King wrote:
> > Hi!
>
> > I just noticed that my patch from #10296 (ready for review, improving
> > the communication with singular via pexpect) had bit rotted.
>
> > Of course, the patchbot knew that the old p
On Dec 10, 9:03 am, John Cremona wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> > Thanks, everybody, for the illuminating discussion.
>
> > Is there any objection to deprecating the current .adjoint() function
> > (which returns a matrix of cofactors) and renaming it as the
> >
This is a known issue, see http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9304.
That trac ticket has been stalled for months because William posted a
patch, I posted an alternative patch that I think is more elegant, and
nobody else seems to have looked at it! It is kind of embarrassing;
I'd really appr
I've created a trac ticket for this (http://trac.sagemath.org/
sage_trac/ticket/10100).
David
On 8 Oct, 08:16, Johannes wrote:
> that's the only test wich fails:
> The following tests failed:
> sage -t "devel/sage/sage/graphs/schnyder.py"
>
> I dont think that there is any connection to
For me it also crashes pretty consistently (using a build of Sage
4.6.alpha2 on 64-bit Ubuntu, which I know passes tests except some
clearly irrelevant known issues). It looks to me like the error isn't
in the real root finding code per se, but comes up when doing
"change_ring(RR)" on any polynomia
On 23 Sep, 12:40, David Roe wrote:
> So if people want speedups for coercion between Integers and
> IntegerMods and between lists and Polynomial_zmod_flint, someone should
> review the finite field patches. :-)
> David
As I pointed out earlier today in a comment on one of the tickets
concerned
Both done.
David
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
I've done #9931. I have looked at #6327 and it looks fine; I have
doctests running at the moment, and if they pass I will give a
positive review for that one as well.
On 23 Sep, 10:54, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have two patches up for review involving both elliptic curves and
> PARI.
Another documentation / doctest patch which could do with a review:
* #9359 http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9359, get number
field doctest coverage up to 100%
This adds several files in number fields to the reference manual, and
adds lots of missing doctests. Any takers?
David
On 21 S
On 29 Aug, 22:58, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:02:05 -0700 (PDT), Vincent D
> <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm working on arithmetic subgroup in sage.modular.arithgroup
> > especially on arithgroup_perm, and I do not know what does the method
> > __cmp__ must do
On 10 July, 13:05, Johannes wrote:
> Hi list,
> i just tried the following pice of code and returned an unexcepted, but
> explainable behavior:
>
> sage: p = los[0][1]
> A lattice polytope: 3-dimensional, 4 vertices.
> sage: list(set([ p for p in reduce (lambda x,y : x + y,[ f.points()
> for f
On 3 July, 14:11, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is related with #5618.
>
> In Sage, one can have two different cyclotomic fields, namely when the
> variable names differ:
> sage: K. = CyclotomicField(3)
> sage: L. = CyclotomicField(3)
> sage: K == L
> False
They may compare as unequal, but b
On Jun 16, 1:31 pm, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> What would you think of raising a NotImplementedError when there is no
> solver installed instead ?
NotImplementedError is misleading: the functionality is implemented,
it just isn't installed :-)
The most "pythonic" solution is probably to add a new
I've never seen the char poly defined as anything other than det(x *
Id - M). Wikipedia agrees, for instance, as does Lang's Algebra.
David
On Jun 15, 12:21 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> In trying to improve the documentation and doctests of the database of
> common graphs [1], I come a
(I'm working on a couple of tickets but I can't remember my Sage wiki
account password -- can someone with admin rights reset it for me?)
On Jun 15, 10:14 am, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Simon King
> wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 2:38 pm, John Cremona wrote:
> > > Is
On Jun 14, 11:25 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> So the doctests for that function are useless for testing that function,
> obviously.
I've wondered before if there's any way to make the test script check
that a given function has actually been called. I've seen several
errors similar to the above, w
On Jun 14, 11:46 pm, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 03:13:53PM -0700, daveloeffler wrote:
> > I've been doing some work adding doctests to some files that don't
> > have them, and the coverage script kept telling me to put in
I've been doing some work adding doctests to some files that don't
have them, and the coverage script kept telling me to put in a
"TestSuite.run()" doctest.
Can someone tell me how on earth I can get one of these to actually
work? No matter what I do, if X is a parent object,
"TestSuite(X).run()"
On Jun 14, 5:24 pm, mmarco wrote:
> I am OK with keeping the default extend=True. But i would like it to
> be the opposite in the case of endomorphisms (i know it is not a good
> idea to have different default behaviours for matrices and
> endomorphisms, so i won't argue if its decided to keep it
I'm happy with the proposed change; as John points out, we already
have a sqrt() function that behaves similarly.
David
On Jun 14, 3:15 pm, mmarco wrote:
> On 14 jun, 15:45, John Cremona wrote:
>
> > I think that sounds a good idea; but can we call the parameter
> > "extend" and not "base_exte
On Apr 29, 11:20 am, Willem Jan Palenstijn wrote:
> Unfortunately it only actually crashes on exit on sage.math about once in
> 10-15
> times.
>
> -Willem Jan
I get exactly the same behaviour on our 64-bit Ubuntu box: it fails
randomly every now and again, with tracebacks looking very similar
I've been investigating trac #8541, where a user reported an
unexpected error when calculating some modular forms. This turns out
to be due to an extremely evil bug in matrix multiplication over
cyclotomic fields:
sage: K. = CyclotomicField(4)
sage: m = matrix(K, [186])
sage: n = matrix(K, [125])
Looks like boolean polynomial rings are an example -- apologies for
spamming the list :-)
On Apr 4, 12:01 pm, daveloeffler wrote:
> I've just been taking a look at reviewing patch #8332, which is part
> of a massive series of patches by David Roe that completely overhauls
> fi
I've just been taking a look at reviewing patch #8332, which is part
of a massive series of patches by David Roe that completely overhauls
finite rings and fields.
It's failing doctests for an entirely silly reason: someone has added
a doctest to sage/structure/parent.pyx to check that some helper
On Mar 16, 8:29 pm, luisfe wrote:
> The issue is that for univariates polynomials over absolute number
> fields, the implementation is just the generic one using Euclidean
> algorithm. I tried passing to pari but I am afraid that the pari
> coertion for these polynomials is incorrect. Is this a
On Mar 9, 4:43 am, Rob Beezer wrote:
> An implementation of finite abelian groups would be at the top of my
> list. Folklore has it many have tried - not sure just where it gets
> hard.
Just a remark on this: I was one of the ones who tried, at Sage Days
16 last summer in Barcelona. The alg
Oh, no, not this one again! I overhauled the elementary divisors code
a while ago and I thought I had sorted out this one. Personally I feel
that M.elementary_divisors() should always return a list of size min
(M.nrows(), M.ncols()), which should also be the size of the square
matrix output by M.sm
On Nov 25, 8:20 pm, Michel wrote:
> --
> | Sage Version 4.2, Release Date: 2009-10-24 |
> | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information. |
> -
On Oct 30, 8:56 am, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> Oh... I missed the parameter "files" of set_verbose(). The parameter
> already fulfills my wish as in
>
> set_verbose(1,files="myprogram.py")
>
> Sorry for noise...
>
> Kwankyu
There is a serious issue with the "files" parameter though. When
"verbose" i
I just tried to build 4.1.2 with the new spkg and got a build error:
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/david/sage-4.1.2/spkg/build/
mpir-1.3.0.p0/src'
make[2]: *** No rule to make target `install-gmpcompat'. Stop.
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/david/sage-4.1.2/spkg/build/
mpir-1.3.0.p0/src'
I'm having trouble with unpickling some elements of an order in a
quadratic number field.
If I do
sage: L = QuadraticField(-11,'a'); OL = L.maximal_order(); w = OL.0
sage: loads(dumps(w))
then I get a traceback ending with
AttributeError: 'AbsoluteOrder' object has no attribute '_is_maximal'
Back in January, Mike Abshoff announced that there would be a
collection of old Sage releases kept on sage.math, for testing
purposes.
Yesterday I wanted to use one of these, and I found that several of
them didn't work -- there seems to be some kind of version
incompatibility going on:
davidloe
I just tried to upgrade from Sage 4.0.1.rc2 to the final 4.0.1, and it
downloaded the changed packages fine, built everything fine, built the
documentation ... and then built the documentation again! This is
deeply tedious as building the reference manual is very time-
consuming.
I've seen this b
Just now I was doing some tinkering in sage.rings.integer_mod_ring
with the aim of fixing ticket #5250, where Sage wrongly claims that
(Z / 162Z)^* is non-cyclic when it is. That turned out to be easy to
fix, but in the process I discovered something more nasty: the method
"multiplicative_subgroup
I've been working on improving doctest coverage in the sage/modular
directory, and I've hit a very curious problem. I added a new doctest
to a file -- sage/modular/hecke/hecke_operator.py, if it matters --
and ran "sage -t" with the output line of the doctest blank, meaning
to copy the correct out
Both John Cremona and I have been having some serious problems with
"sage -t" in 3.4.1.alpha0.
Doing "sage -testall" seems to work as it should, but doctesting a
single file fails horribly in many cases, even with files that weren't
changed at all between 3.4 and 3.4.1.alpha0:
da...@groke:~/sage
In 3.3 and 3.4.rc0, I get a segmentation fault when I try and compare
certain elements of congruence subgroups.
sage: r,s,t,u = Gamma0(2).gens()
sage: r**(-1)*u**(-1)
[-1 -1]
[ 2 1]
sage: t
[-1 -1]
[ 2 1]
These look pretty equal, don't they? That's not a problem in itself,
as gens() isn't supp
On Feb 4, 6:34 pm, Craig Citro wrote:
> > Go for it, but please don't break pickling. If older congruence subgroups
> > don't unpickle, then e.g., all the data here will be broken:
>
> >http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/db/modsym/
>
> In particular, I just went to some work to fix th
OK, that works now. Thanks to both of you for your help.
David
On Feb 4, 2:15 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> On Feb 4, 6:06 am, daveloeffler wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> > I've been doing some tinkering with the congruence subgroups code
> > (because I'm lecturing a co
I've been doing some tinkering with the congruence subgroups code
(because I'm lecturing a course on modular forms, and I think it's a
nice idea that Sage should be able to do all the questions on my
problem sheets). As part of this, I'd like to split up the rather
large file sage/modular/congroup
> 2. The Linbox implementation and the Pari implementation differ by a
> transpose; that is, if you really want the two to agree on some matrix
> m, you need to compare
Ah, I think you've just uncovered an inconsistency.
By definition, the elementary divisors of m.transpose() are equal by
defin
Upgrading from 3.3.alpha2, it all downloads and builds fine, but the
fix for the fractional ideals in relative number fields problem seems
to have introduced a new bug:
sage: K. = QuadraticField(-23)
sage: L. = K.extension(x^3 - x - 1)
sage: OL = L.ring_of_integers()
It seems to get stuck in an
Same for me on 32-bit Suse.
On Dec 18, 8:54 am, "John Cremona" wrote:
> Built fine and all tests passed on: 32-bit ubuntu; 64-bit Suse.
>
> John
>
> 2008/12/18 Justin C. Walker :
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 2008, at 10:20 , mabshoff wrote:
>
> >> Hello folks,
>
> >> here goes 3.2.2.rc1. We finally mer
Installs fine on my machine, but why does doc-3.2.2.spkg contain a pre-
compiled version of the old 3.2.1 reference manual? The build process
doesn't (IIRC) automatically rebuild the docs, so we risk leaving
users with outdated documentation, and it's highly likely that many
won't even realise thi
On Dec 15, 4:12 pm, mhampton wrote:
> For a mug design, I have this at the
> moment:http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhampton/mug2.png
>
> which looks like this on
> cafepress:http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhampton/mug2design.png
I like the mug design -- I want one (my current of
o fix this.
David
On Dec 11, 6:17 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 11, 10:14 am, daveloeffler wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> > I'm having trouble building the reference manual. Looks like this is
> > because there is an "r" missing in sage.calculus.calculus.py, so the
I'm having trouble building the reference manual. Looks like this is
because there is an "r" missing in sage.calculus.calculus.py, so the
docstring for the minpoly function is encoded wrongly, and latex2html
sees "\var{epsilon}" and raises an invalid character error on "\v".
Seems a bit pointless
On Dec 11, 12:26 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You likely have two heads, i.e. you need to do a merge. That is why it
> is highly recommended to upgrade from a clean branch. "hg heads"
> should tell you if you have more than one head and "hg merge tip"
> should get you all the change
-hg changes" on that file, the changeset is listed, and "sage -
hg diff" with the appropriate revision number gives the expected
output; but the code simply isn't there in the file. Somehow Mercurial
has got a bit confused.
David
On Dec 11, 12:06 pm, daveloeffler <[EMAIL PRO
On my laptop (32-bit Pentium M running SuSE), upgrading from
3.2.2.alpha0, it builds without complaining. I am running sage -
testall -long at the moment, and so far there are two failures:
- the one from sage/misc/cachefunc.py which happened last time, with
source introspection not working for c
On Dec 8, 5:11 pm, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David, could I ask for some examples over
> some other rings or doctests explaining why that doesn't work? I
> think QQ[x] should work, and maybe ZZ / n ZZ (depending on how much
> care you take to make it work).
It works in QQ[x] an
On Dec 8, 1:07 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there two different ordering issues here: (1) do zeroes go at the
> beginning or at the end? (2) Does each nonzero entry divide the next,
> or the previous?
The ordering is meant to correspond to inclusion of ideals, so if 1's
ar
At the moment, if I create an integer matrix, there are methods
"elementary_divisors" and "smith_form". Example:
sage: m = matrix(ZZ,3,3,xrange(9)); m.elementary_divisors()
[1, 3, 0]
sage: m.smith_form()
([0 0 0]
[0 3 0]
[0 0 1],
[-1 2 -1]
[ 0 -1 1]
[ 0 1 0],
[ 1 4 -1]
[-2 -3 1]
[ 1 0 0
I've opened a ticket (#4719) for doctest crashing on failures.
[mabshoff]
> OK. I am seeing the numerical noise issue at #4276, but I would also
> be curious about the cachefunc.py failure.
The failure I'm getting is in the doctest for
CachedFunction._sage_src_. Running with verbose mode on one
I've also been getting the "mysterious error may have crashed doctest"
messages, and on closer inspection I think there's actually a bug *in
the doctest framework*, which causes it to report all failed doctests
as "mysterious errors". I tested this myself by creating a Python file
with a single fu
I think you've uncovered a bug that had been masked by the is_one bug.
If I'm not mistaken, I^-1 calls MultiplicativeGroupElement.__invert__,
which tests whether self is one and if not returns 1/self. Obligingly,
the coercion model (being asked to calculate 1/self) calls __invert__
again!
(I conv
Is there supposed to be a canonical coercion map between a relative
number field and its associated absolute field?
At present (at least, in Sage 3.1.2), there doesn't seem to be:
sage: K1. = NumberField(x^3 - 2)
sage: R. = PolynomialRing(K1).gen()
sage: K2. = K1.extension(y^2 - a)
sage: K2abs =
89 matches
Mail list logo
