On Saturday, March 3, 2012 11:02:39 AM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote:
...
>
> Has anyone ever done a natural-language frontend attempt to Maxima or
> its predecessors? I would be surprised if someone hadn't, to be
> honest.
>
> I am unaware of any natural language front end to Macsyma or Maxima,
Michael Orlitzky writes:
> On 03/01/12 23:43, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> I don't understand. Why would it be *faster* to do version bumps if
>> sage-on-gentoo gets into Gentoo proper? Overlays are always more nimble
>> than the Gentoo tree, as far as I can see.
>
> If we're to distribute sage via sourc
On Mar 3, 10:08 am, rjf wrote:
> I thing this natural language input idea is not particularly
> proven here. Why would it be easier for a user to learn to type
> perfectly
> formed English (or other natural language) inputs instead of math?
Presumably a first step? But you'd have to ask the d
On 3/3/12 9:08 AM, rjf wrote:
I thing this natural language input idea is not particularly
proven here. Why would it be easier for a user to learn to type
perfectly
formed English (or other natural language) inputs instead of math?
I think the point is that prospective users of Sage have alrea
I thing this natural language input idea is not particularly
proven here. Why would it be easier for a user to learn to type
perfectly
formed English (or other natural language) inputs instead of math?
You should see what is done if the natural language input has
unexpected forms in it.
But, if
Is anyone from Zurich going? (I am trying to)
Paul
On Friday, March 2, 2012 8:33:22 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Bringing this back to the actual subject of the thread...
>
> See
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12619
>
> The developer has the following followup too.
>
>
> >>> Lo
Bringing this back to the actual subject of the thread...
See
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12619
The developer has the following followup too.
>>> Login into localhost at port 9000
>>> waiting... EmptyBlock 2
>>> finished handshake. Session id is 9b9c68446cc2caf65e14d5078ac9eedd
>
On 03/01/12 23:43, Keshav Kini wrote:
>
> I don't understand. Why would it be *faster* to do version bumps if
> sage-on-gentoo gets into Gentoo proper? Overlays are always more nimble
> than the Gentoo tree, as far as I can see.
If we're to distribute sage via source, we need some way for users t
On 3/2/12 1:40 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
"python setup.py develop" would be nice, how does it deal with Cython
files? In terms of moinmoin, I've wondered why we're shipping the wiki
as a standard spkg. Perhaps gnutls and twisted could be placed on the
chopping block too in the not-too-distant f
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Julien Puydt
> wrote:
>> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
>>> Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in Sage
>>> without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from
Michael Orlitzky writes:
> The way forward is the sage-on-gentoo/prefix approach:
> spkg-install scripts are just a poor excuse for ebuilds already.
>
> We ship and maintain half of a linux distro, with bugs popping up
> around the arbitrary cut-off point (sage doesn't ship dvipng, so it's
> perpe
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 04:00 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how situation :
>>
>> sage contains all its deps (even if they're already there)
>>
>> will be any better for subtle bugs than situation :
>>
>>
Le jeudi 01 mars, Michael Orlitzky a écrit:
> On 03/01/2012 04:52 PM, William Stein wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how situation :
> >>
> >> sage contains all its deps (even if they're already there)
> >>
> >> will be any better for subtle bugs than situation :
> >>
> >>
On 03/01/2012 04:52 PM, William Stein wrote:
I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how situation :
sage contains all its deps (even if they're already there)
will be any better for subtle bugs than situation :
sage has the same deps, but doesn't manage them itself more than by
declaring
On 03/01/2012 04:00 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how situation :
sage contains all its deps (even if they're already there)
will be any better for subtle bugs than situation :
sage has the same deps, but doesn't manage them itself more than by
declaring
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le jeudi 01 mars, Harald Schilly a écrit:
>> On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>> >
>> > Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible
>> > what
>> >
>> > is possible for other complex systems, and h
Le jeudi 01 mars, Harald Schilly a écrit:
> On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
> >
> > Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible
> > what
> >
> > is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
> >
>
> Put simple: Sage is turing com
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>
> Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what
>
> is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
>
Put simple: Sage is turing complete, a "video editor" (office package [*],
or whatever) is
On Mar 1, 9:43 am, kcrisman wrote:
> On Feb 29, 8:46 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> > On 2/29/12 5:31 PM, mmarco wrote:
>
> > > So, returning to the original subject. Would it be ok to have this
> > > natural language interface, say, as an optional package? Or as someone
> > > suggested, to have it
On Feb 29, 8:46 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 2/29/12 5:31 PM, mmarco wrote:
>
> > So, returning to the original subject. Would it be ok to have this
> > natural language interface, say, as an optional package? Or as someone
> > suggested, to have it in some experimental server?
>
> Yes! And Yes!
On 2/29/12 5:31 PM, mmarco wrote:
So, returning to the original subject. Would it be ok to have this
natural language interface, say, as an optional package? Or as someone
suggested, to have it in some experimental server?
Yes! And Yes! Please, go for it!
Jason
--
To post to this group, s
Em 29 de fevereiro de 2012 19:24, Julien Puydt
escreveu:
> Le mercredi 29 février, Jan Groenewald a écrit:
>> Hi
>>
>> On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt
>> wrote:
>>
>> > If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
>> > there would be a gain too. Let me stress again
So, returning to the original subject. Would it be ok to have this
natural language interface, say, as an optional package? Or as someone
suggested, to have it in some experimental server?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:01:46 PM UTC-8, Snark wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
>
> > > (1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the
> > > hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the
> > > axioms?
> >
> > Neither. This is a
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> Even if Sage didn't include Python (say), we would still have to worry
> about it as a dependency, and "big" would be replaced by "sage has too
> many dependencies".
I tought I had insisted enough : the spkg would still be there,
ready to be used.
Hi
On 29 February 2012 23:35, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
> >> there would be a gain too. Let me
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt wrote:
>>
>> If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
>> there would be a gain too. Let me stress again : I have some of the
>> things it needs already, so it coul
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Julien Puydt
>> wrote:
>> > Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
>> >> Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in
>> >> Sage
Le mercredi 29 février, Jan Groenewald a écrit:
> Hi
>
> On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt
> wrote:
>
> > If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
> > there would be a gain too. Let me stress again : I have some of the
> > things it needs already, so it could ju
Hi
On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt wrote:
> If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
> there would be a gain too. Let me stress again : I have some of the
> things it needs already, so it could just use it.
>
>
I was under the impression...
Building Sage Just
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Julien Puydt
> wrote:
> > Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> >> Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in
> >> Sage without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from
> >> s
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
>> Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in Sage
>> without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from source) in
>> Sage. And there's no way we're doing that. We a
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in Sage
> without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from source) in
> Sage. And there's no way we're doing that. We already have to deal
> with too many different programming la
On 2/29/12 12:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM, mmarco wrote:
What is the issue with haskell? Its license?
Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in Sage
without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from source) in
Sage. And there's no
On Feb 29, 12:58 pm, mmarco wrote:
> What is the issue with haskell? Its license?
>
Probably just not worth having yet another upstream dependency that
doesn't really help Sage in other ways. That doesn't mean this
couldn't be related, just that vanilla Sage wouldn't incorporate it -
which see
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM, mmarco wrote:
> What is the issue with haskell? Its license?
Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in Sage
without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from source) in
Sage. And there's no way we're doing that. We already have to de
What is the issue with haskell? Its license?
On Feb 29, 6:33 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:55 AM, mmarco wrote:
> > Take a look at this:
> >http://www.molto-project.eu/node/1412
>
> > It is a library that can translate natural language sentences to sage
> > commands. I hav
Dear Prof. Saludes,
This email is cc:ed to the official Sage developer list, which we
welcome you to join at sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Appended see some
of the very positive reaction to your MOLTO project to give Sage
natural language interface.
I have at least one question, though. Assuming
On Feb 29, 8:38 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 2/29/12 5:55 AM, mmarco wrote:
>
> > Has somebody tested it?
> > Do you think it would be worth the effort of including this in sage? I
> > think that, for example, having an option in the notebook to enter
> > commands in natural language would be a k
On 2/29/12 5:55 AM, mmarco wrote:
Has somebody tested it?
Do you think it would be worth the effort of including this in sage? I
think that, for example, having an option in the notebook to enter
commands in natural language would be a killer feature (assuming it
works fine).
Never heard of thi
On Feb 29, 6:55 am, mmarco wrote:
> Take a look at this:http://www.molto-project.eu/node/1412
>
> It is a library that can translate natural language sentences to sage
> commands. I haven't tested it, but the examples they show sound
> impressive:
>
> sage> compute the product of the octal numbe
Does this library also include speech recognition? :)
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:55:47 AM UTC, mmarco wrote:
>
> Take a look at this:
> http://www.molto-project.eu/node/1412
>
> It is a library that can translate natural language sentences to sage
> commands. I haven't tested it, but th
42 matches
Mail list logo
