Hi all,
seems like my environment is very very forgiving. I missed amsmath and amssym.
I’ve just committed a new version which should compile in standard
environments.
Cheers,
Martin
On Friday 30 Aug 2013 09:13:02 William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Jason Grout
>
> wrote:
Martin
Maybe one of us misunderstands the other (& maybe this should become a new
thread? dunno).
I am somewhat hesitant, though, to go too deep into signature based
> algorithms
> and new improvements...
It was not my intention to go deep into signature based algorithms; I was
trying to qu
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 8/30/13 5:53 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> it’s here: https://bitbucket.org/malb/sage-gb-book
>
>
> Also, you could create a project on cloud.sagemath.com and collaboratively
> edit the textbook right there. Live, real-time
Hi all,
it’s here: https://bitbucket.org/malb/sage-gb-book
Cheers,
Martin
On Thursday 29 Aug 2013 20:53:32 john_perry_usm wrote:
> Martin
>
>
> I'd be willing to help with this. Aside from having worked with you on a
> couple of the programs, I've been working on resurrecting the dynamic
> alg
Hi John, [sage-devel]
awesome! I shall put what I have in a repository on bitbucket and you can then
have a look to see what you think might need work etc.?
I am somewhat hesitant, though, to go too deep into signature based algorithms
and new improvements, this sounds more like research than a
Martin
I'd be willing to help with this. Aside from having worked with you on a
couple of the programs, I've been working on resurrecting the dynamic
algorithms of Caboara and Gritzmann and Sturmfels, using a new technique. I
also have some stuff you could probably use for introductory mate
On Wednesday 28 Aug 2013 11:17:10 Rob Beezer wrote:
> If you think this is a good project for the Sage community, then consider
> demonstrate the viability by volunteering as an author, editor, producer
> and/or manager of such an effort (in addition to those expressing interest
> already above).
There were discussions about a Sage Book Series at the two Sage Days
(notebook and edu) in Seattle back in June, motivated in part by this
thread. Discussion centered on interest in creating books about Sage, and
the advisability of the Sage community producing them ourselves. I
volunteered to
> That's not crazy at all. It's exactly the spirit that makes Sage great!
>
You seem to elude the possibility that this might be crazy AND be what
makes Sage great.
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:41 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> Would somebody like Minh Nguyen be willing to do technical copyediting
>> in exchange for a percentage of sales?
>
> I might be crazy for saying this, but I would rather d
Hi William,
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:41 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Would somebody like Minh Nguyen be willing to do technical copyediting
> in exchange for a percentage of sales?
I might be crazy for saying this, but I would rather donate my time
for copy editing than risk a conflict of interest
[this didn't make it past gmane, so I repost here, sorry; I also add few
things]
On Tuesday, 4 June 2013 00:41:19 UTC+8, William wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, rjf >
> wrote:
> [...]
> > but if you have already written it and Springer would like to publish
> it,
> > and it doesn'
On Monday, June 3, 2013 6:26:22 PM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
> That is true in this context, you are right - though I wonder if someone
> completely "new to the community" wanted to contribute something. I still
> think the "real editorial board" makes sense.
Yes, I think an editorial board i
On Monday, June 3, 2013 5:36:22 PM UTC-4, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 3, 2013 11:16:54 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Intriguing idea. I think that you'd definitely need a real "editorial
>> board", with at least blind review (probably double-blind is unrealistic?).
>>
>
> As a re
On Monday, June 3, 2013 11:16:54 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> Intriguing idea. I think that you'd definitely need a real "editorial
> board", with at least blind review (probably double-blind is unrealistic?).
>
As a referee of articles for a popular journal published by a large
mathematical
On Monday, June 3, 2013 9:41:19 AM UTC-7, William wrote:
> What do people think? Do you think we can create our own series, of
> just as high of quality as Springer, but more inexpensive for readers,
> and with a creative commons license?
>
Yes. +1.
> Would somebody like Minh Nguyen be
+1 - After all the flaming on the mailinglist we should be able to face
criticism ;-)
Also, reviewer should be another core Sage developer. So chances are you
know each other already...
On Monday, June 3, 2013 9:16:10 PM UTC+1, William wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM, kcrisman >
>
The link was only showing the latest 10 titles by default, the series
stretches back to about 2006 or so (look for the 'Show all 46 results'
link). I'm looking at the title page for one right now and it's (c)
Springer 2009.
I own several books in this series, some are better than others but in
ge
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> at least blind review (probably double-blind is unrealistic?).
>
non-rhetorical question: Do you really think anybody deciding on
whether to read/buy a book on amazon.com considers whether or not
there is blind or double-blind review of the man
On 6 May 2013 02:00, rjf wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 1:27:30 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sage-Developers,
>>
>> There is a big series of small books about R that Springer publishes:
>>
>> http://www.springer.com/series/6991?detailsPage=titles
>>
>> The editorial director of that
On Monday, June 3, 2013 12:41:19 PM UTC-4, William wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, rjf >
> wrote:
> [...]
> > but if you have already written it and Springer would like to publish
> it,
> > and it doesn't interfere with your ownership, it seems like you have
> > nothing to lose.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, rjf wrote:
[...]
> but if you have already written it and Springer would like to publish it,
> and it doesn't interfere with your ownership, it seems like you have
> nothing to lose. But make sure you don't give away something
> unintentionally, whether it is right
> Looks like Springer behaves in this market as Apple in personal
> computers, charging more for reasons not always clear...
Just for fun :
http://www.springer.com/computer/theoretical+computer+science/book/978-3-642-14763-0
And I found this one yesterday :
http://www.springer.com/statistics/stat
23 matches
Mail list logo
