Is it pronounced Piss-ige or Pee-Sage? What does the P stand for?
I know that dogs, etc. mark locations this way, so maybe that has to
do with geometry?
see sage-flame for a snarkier comment.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group,
On Sep 2, 5:28 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
> > On 9/1/10 10:32 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> >> Tim,
>
> >> all screwing around aside for a moment. I broadly agree with your
> >> sentiments. However, there are also some issues with what you are
>
William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 9/1/10 10:32 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
Tim,
all screwing around aside for a moment. I broadly agree with your
sentiments. However, there are also some issues with what you are
suggesting. And I mean to make these
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 9/1/10 10:32 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> all screwing around aside for a moment. I broadly agree with your
>> sentiments. However, there are also some issues with what you are
>> suggesting. And I mean to make these observations in
On 9/1/10 10:32 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
Tim,
all screwing around aside for a moment. I broadly agree with your
sentiments. However, there are also some issues with what you are
suggesting. And I mean to make these observations in all seriousness.
I'm reading this thread with great interest. Tho
Tim,
all screwing around aside for a moment. I broadly agree with your
sentiments. However, there are also some issues with what you are
suggesting. And I mean to make these observations in all seriousness.
One of the reasons we have been rewriting things like ZZ and ZZ[x] is
that there has been
On 08/31/10 11:32 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
If you look at the Wolfram Research Library, where are a whole load of
optional packages available contributed by users. I assume they have
gone through at least some form of review before being put on the
Wolfram web site.
Acutally, it's quite funn
On 08/30/10 09:51 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
There are two different goals that people have here. One is to build a
solid, bug free piece of mathematical software, ideally conforming to
all the good software engineering principles, building every
On Aug 30, 11:59 pm, Tim Daly wrote:
> Now apply the same lesson to Sage. Assume that 30 years from now, none
> of the
> original developers are connected with the code and there is no one to
> ask. It will happen.
I didn't read this thread but just about that comment: I think the
solution to tha
If I understand you correctly, you want to set the goal for Sage much
higher than just a free, open alternative to the Ma*s.
- Robert
Yes, but why am I trying to do that?
Computation mathematics is a new field of study, at least in the
symbolic area.
It is the child of the union of math
I think the claim was that it is becoming the M$ of mathematical
software. I suspect that means "default standard" or something.
Actually, I didn't ask. Tim, what does it mean?
I was making the assumption that Sage managed achieve "success" by being
widely
adopted and replacing the 4Ms. The
On Aug 29, 5:41 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> Why attack Sage. It is what it is. Why defend it. It certainly didn't/
> doesn't get everything right. One thing is for sure. Whatever is wrong
> with Sage, it is almost certainly too late to fix it. Whatever is
> right with Sage certainly made it popular.
"
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 30, 8:51 pm, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
>> > tl;dr old curmudgeon flaming on about the dead past, not "getting it" about
>> > Sage.
>>
>> > Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> >> In terms of
The idea that Sage persons should re-implement something in Python or
Cython is based on a notion that there is a problem with existing and
(apparently) working code, because it is written in an
(allegedly) unsuitable implementation language. Furthermore, this
notion also extends to a claim that
On Aug 30, 8:51 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
> > tl;dr old curmudgeon flaming on about the dead past, not "getting it" about
> > Sage.
>
> > Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> >> In terms of the general rant, there are two points I'd like to make.
> >> T
I think/suspect Sage is more popular than Maxima if you go by all time
download statistics.
I don't think it is as popular as Maple or Mathematica yet.
I think the claim was that it is becoming the M$ of mathematical
software. I suspect that means "default standard" or something.
Actually, I didn
I read this thread with some interest. I'm not sure anything new is
being said; just different
people saying it. Well, not all different.
I am curious as to the claim that Sage is very popular.
Compared to?
Maxima for Windows has seen something like 285,000 downloads. But
that includes peopl
How do you expect Wolfram Research, Maplesoft and similar deal with such
issues? They must hit them too. I suspect they have a few nightmares with
this, but the best way is probably to have decent documentation. If code is
well commented, and has references to papers where the algorithms are
pub
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 08/29/10 07:07 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>
> Of course it could be a hardware error, but if so it was not logged as such.
> But I've only seen that error once, and can't reproduc
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 08/29/10 09:56 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
>>
>> tl;dr old curmudgeon flaming on about the dead past, not "getting it"
>> about Sage.
>>
>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In terms of the general rant, there are two points I'd like to make.
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
> tl;dr old curmudgeon flaming on about the dead past, not "getting it" about
> Sage.
>
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>> In terms of the general rant, there are two points I'd like to make.
>> The first is that there's a distinction between the Sag
On 08/30/10 03:09 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
Bill Hart wrote:
Why is this entire thread not on sage-flame? What does software
engineering, documentation, test code, etc. have to do with "Creating
a viable free open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica and
Matlab."?
Despite what appears to
On 30 August 2010 01:41, Bill Hart wrote:
> Why is this entire thread not on sage-flame? What does software
> engineering, documentation, test code, etc. have to do with "Creating
> a viable free open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica and
> Matlab."?
Everything!
Correct software en
On 30 Aug, 03:09, Tim Daly wrote:
> Bill Hart wrote:
> > Why is this entire thread not on sage-flame? What does software
> > engineering, documentation, test code, etc. have to do with "Creating
> > a viable free open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica and
> > Matlab."?
>
> Despite
Bill Hart wrote:
Why is this entire thread not on sage-flame? What does software
engineering, documentation, test code, etc. have to do with "Creating
a viable free open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica and
Matlab."?
Despite what appears to be competitive badgering I really do
Why is this entire thread not on sage-flame? What does software
engineering, documentation, test code, etc. have to do with "Creating
a viable free open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica and
Matlab."?
I found the entire thread really amusing. I would parody the hell out
of it, but th
On 08/29/10 09:56 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
tl;dr old curmudgeon flaming on about the dead past, not "getting it"
about Sage.
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
In terms of the general rant, there are two points I'd like to make.
The first is that there's a distinction between the Sage library
itself and the m
On 08/29/10 07:07 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
There have been many reports of where doctests fail when running
make ptest
or
make ptestlong
which later pass if run individually. I've lost count of the number of times
I've seen that reported,
tl;dr old curmudgeon flaming on about the dead past, not "getting it"
about Sage.
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
In terms of the general rant, there are two points I'd like to make.
The first is that there's a distinction between the Sage library
itself and the many other spkgs we ship. By far the ma
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 08/27/10 07:24 PM, mhampton wrote:
>>
>> For the record, I tried the above calculation at least 250,000 times
>> on two macs (running OSX 10.5 and 10.6) and on Ubuntu 9.10 with a i7
>> 860 processor, had no errors. This was on Sage-4.
On 08/27/10 07:24 PM, mhampton wrote:
For the record, I tried the above calculation at least 250,000 times
on two macs (running OSX 10.5 and 10.6) and on Ubuntu 9.10 with a i7
860 processor, had no errors. This was on Sage-4.5.2. I guess I'll
try again with 4.5.3, maybe its related to the Pari
For the record, I tried the above calculation at least 250,000 times
on two macs (running OSX 10.5 and 10.6) and on Ubuntu 9.10 with a i7
860 processor, had no errors. This was on Sage-4.5.2. I guess I'll
try again with 4.5.3, maybe its related to the Pari upgrade.
Otherwise +1 to Alex's comment
32 matches
Mail list logo
