On 7/25/07, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Timothy Clemans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A LaTeX document can easily be converted to different formats unlike a
> > wiki entry.
>
> Funniest thing I've heard today. First time I've heard that process
> be considered "easy". Tool
"Timothy Clemans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A LaTeX document can easily be converted to different formats unlike a
> wiki entry.
Funniest thing I've heard today. First time I've heard that process
be considered "easy". Tools such as hevea and latex2html do a
reasonable job, but they're cer
"William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/24/07, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > May I suggest to add timing to the examples in the documentation - that
>> > would be very useful.
>> >
>> > For example, in recent discussio
A LaTeX document can easily be converted to different formats unlike a
wiki entry.
On 7/25/07, Chris Chiasson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 1:29 pm, "Michael Abshoff"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > SAGE already uses a MoinMoin Wiki installation.
>
> So I should amend my comment by a
On Jul 25, 1:29 pm, "Michael Abshoff"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SAGE already uses a MoinMoin Wiki installation.
So I should amend my comment by asking:
Why not place the documentation in a MoinMoinWiki?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email t
The SAGE wiki:
http://www.sagemath.org:9001/
There is a link from the main page. MoinMoin with SAGE supports LaTeX.
-Bobby
On 7/25/07, Chris Chiasson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is conversion to LaTeX a requirement or merely a nice-to-have?
>
> On Jul 25, 1:16 pm, "Timothy Clemans" <[EMAIL
Is conversion to LaTeX a requirement or merely a nice-to-have?
On Jul 25, 1:16 pm, "Timothy Clemans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> That is already available by creating Wiki-books. Wiki-books can not
> be easily converted to LaTeX documents.http://en.wikibooks.org
>
> On 7/25/07, Chris Chiasson <[
It should be qualified that the user base for the site is small
because Mathematica already has a fair amount (actually, it is a
massive amount, but it isn't nearly enough for my taste) of
documentation.
On Jul 25, 1:16 pm, "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > MediaWiki
>
> > There is
o yea, if you do go this route, don't forget about:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OpenID
On Jul 25, 1:00 pm, Chris Chiasson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone has to be evil and mention this:
> MediaWiki
>
> If you are willing to sacrifice absolute editorial control, the wiki
> docume
Chris Chiasson wrote:
>
> Someone has to be evil and mention this:
> MediaWiki
>
SAGE already uses a MoinMoin Wiki installation.
> If you are willing to sacrifice absolute editorial control, the wiki
> documentation can develop organically at its own pace and in the
> manner that the writers cho
That is already available by creating Wiki-books. Wiki-books can not
be easily converted to LaTeX documents. http://en.wikibooks.org
On 7/25/07, Chris Chiasson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Someone has to be evil and mention this:
> MediaWiki
>
> If you are willing to sacrifice absolute editoria
> MediaWiki
>
> There is already a site that wove together Mathematica and MediaWiki.
> The same could probably be done for SAGE. Of course, that site hasn't
> done so well because the Mathematica user base is so small ...
Assuming that SAGE's user base is larger?
Alec
--~--~-~--~~
Someone has to be evil and mention this:
MediaWiki
If you are willing to sacrifice absolute editorial control, the wiki
documentation can develop organically at its own pace and in the
manner that the writers choose.
There is already a site that wove together Mathematica and MediaWiki.
The same
On 7/24/07, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > May I suggest to add timing to the examples in the documentation - that
> > would be very useful.
> >
> > For example, in recent discussion about Bell numbers on the math-fun list,
> > it was
"Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> May I suggest to add timing to the examples in the documentation - that
> would be very useful.
>
> For example, in recent discussion about Bell numbers on the math-fun list,
> it was noted that it takes a very long time to calculate bell(1000) in
On 7/24/07, Jack Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> GAP takes under a second to compute Bell(1000), compared to over a
> minute (and going) for maple on the same computer.
Gap takes about 1 second for this on one of my test machines.
Nick Alexander wrote an optimized native SAGE function tha
GAP takes under a second to compute Bell(1000), compared to over a
minute (and going) for maple on the same computer.
On Jul 24, 3:32 pm, "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> May I suggest to add timing to the examples in the documentation - that
> would be very useful.
>
> For example,
May I suggest to add timing to the examples in the documentation - that
would be very useful.
For example, in recent discussion about Bell numbers on the math-fun list,
it was noted that it takes a very long time to calculate bell(1000) in Maple
while BellB[1000] in Mathematica is much faster.
Ted wrote:
> Before one can determine what SAGE's documentation should look like, I
> think that one must first try to gain an understanding of how the
> technologies that SAGE depends on ( and also technologies in general )
> are going to evolve over the next 20 years.
I'd like to give a concre
I would vote for putting that content in the "Guided Tour" part of the
tutorial. I think the variety of documentation would be a little too
fragmented otherwise. In my limited experience so far, new users of
sage can already be confused about where they should look things up.
-Marshall
On Jul
Ted: Very very interesting. Thanks for the great comments and the
offer to help.
+++
On 7/23/07, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> William wrote:
>
> > I think SAGE might potentially greatly benefit from certain types of new
> > documentation.
William wrote:
> I think SAGE might potentially greatly benefit from certain types of new
> documentation.
I have been thinking about the topic of SAGE's documentation for a
couple of months now and here is what I have come up with so far.
Before one can determine what SAGE's documentation sh
I'll help; and I'm pretty familiar (as a user) with the algebra / combinatorics
bits.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I think SAGE might potentially greatly benefit from certain types of new
> documentation. Unfortunately, after consider a number of possibilities,
>
Sounds like a great idea. You might consider adding a chapter
for users who are looking for pre-calculus help (trig, simple
algebra, other HS topics), an idea suggested by Mike O'Sullivan.
On 7/22/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I think SAGE might potentially greatly
What would the plan for the plotting documentation be? Would there be
an overview of the plot objects followed by some small projects? For
me I sort of get the basics of plotting in SAGE but do not really know
how to do much in the way of mathematical art. For example I would
have no idea how to m
25 matches
Mail list logo
