On Jan 28, 5:14 am, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (and is this is a bug:
>
> sage: I**10
> [2.0985787164673874e323228496 .. +infinity]
I don't think so, just a blowup of interval enclosures + an overflow
in the exponent. afaik mpfi has a limit in the exponent (should chang
Hello folks,
here we go with Sage 2.10.1.rc2. We finally have the eclib.spkg
updated as well as various fixes like the empty ideal comparison
segfault and the abs norm vector issue. Those attempting to
build on Solaris will also be glad to hear that I made progress
merging build fixes and we are
Craig Citro wrote:
>
> So I just posted another version of the patch, which is a bit slicker,
> at William's suggestion. I need someone to review it, and it should be
> one of the two of Justin & Jaap, since you're the only ones currently
> seeing the bug.
>
Works for me!
Jaap
--~--~---
This doesn't answer your question but might provide a temporary workaround:
sage: P = list_plot([Q(1+i/100) for i in srange(900)])
sage: show(P)
On Jan 27, 2008 9:39 PM, Jonathan Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what's going on in the following example? I can't seem
> to rep
An alternate download link is
http://sagemath.org/~mabshoff/sage-2.10.1.rc2.tar
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options
#740 and #1946 should be (re)viewed together: the former has a big
patch followed by a tiny one, then the latter has another big one.
John
On 28/01/2008, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> An alternate download link is
>
> http://sagemath.org/~mabshoff/sage-2.10.1.rc2.tar
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mi
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> here we go with Sage 2.10.1.rc2. We finally have the eclib.spkg
[...]
>
> If you have been suffering from the sage0 doctest failure please
> try out the patch attached to #1958. It hasn't made it in to rc2,
> but the way it currently looks it will be in there.
On Jan 27, 8:14 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2008, at 10:55 PM, David Harvey wrote:
>
> >> We actually know what the first few digits (or, actually, all of
> >> them)
> >> of *compare* are: 1000...
>
> > Sorry, you're right, I wasn't very coherent.
>
> > What I thin
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 28, 7:24 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>>> Hello folks,
>>> here we go with Sage 2.10.1.rc2. We finally have the eclib.spkg
>> [...]
>>
>>> If you have been suffering from the sage0 doctest failure please
>>> try out the patch attached
Since the imaginary part is (indistinguishable from) 0, Is there any
reason this succeeds:
sage: RR(CDF(1))
1.00
sage: RR(CC(1))
1.00
but this fails?
sage: float(CC(1))
Traceback (most recent call last):
F
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 28, 11:45 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hi Jaap,
>
>>> which Maple release are you running?
>> Me, once again. I don't think it is important which version
>> of Maple is installed (if any!) for the test of interfaces/maple.py!
>
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 28, 11:45 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hi Jaap,
>
>>> which Maple release are you running?
>> Me, once again. I don't think it is important which version
>> of Maple is installed (if any!) for the test of interfaces/maple.py!
>
mabshoff wrote:
>
> which Maple release are you running?
>
Me, once again. I don't think it is important which version
of Maple is installed (if any!) for the test of interfaces/maple.py!
Jaap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-de
On Jan 28, 11:45 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
Hi Jaap,
> > which Maple release are you running?
>
> Me, once again. I don't think it is important which version
> of Maple is installed (if any!) for the test of interfaces/maple.py!
I do believe that it is importa
On Jan 28, 7:24 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
> > Hello folks,
>
> > here we go with Sage 2.10.1.rc2. We finally have the eclib.spkg
> [...]
>
> > If you have been suffering from the sage0 doctest failure please
> > try out the patch attached to #1958. It hasn't mad
For consistency with Python's behavior for float(complex(1,0)) for
better or worse...
- William
(Sent from my iPhone.)
On Jan 28, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Since the imaginary part is (indistinguishable from) 0, Is there any
> reason this succeeds:
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, I'm quite happy with this (thanks David for suggesting it
and Carl for telling me how to do it!)
I've put this in and played around with it. It is definitely
*much* faster for the huge examples that I tried, and it's
also fast enough on smaller
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 28, 11:45 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hi Jaap,
>
>>> which Maple release are you running?
>> Me, once again. I don't think it is important which version
>> of Maple is installed (if any!) for the test of interfaces/maple.py!
>
On Jan 28, 3:47 pm, Alex Ghitza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll post a new patch for #1014 shortly. David, is it ok if I
> replace the current exact_log() function with
>
> return self.ndigits(m) - 1
>
> (after checking self is positive, etc.)?
It looks like mpz_sizeinbase() only works for
On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> OK, I'm quite happy with this (thanks David for suggesting it
> and Carl for telling me how to do it!)
>
> I've put this in and played around with it. It is definitely
> *much* faster for the huge examples that I tried, and it's
> also fast enou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fair enough. One could try to modify mpz_sizeinbase to accept
larger bases, although I'm not sure how easy it would be to
make it work with *arbitrary* bases. Anyway, this is a bit more
involved than what I'm willing to try now. It's definitely
som
On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:31 PM, David Harvey wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
>
>> OK, I'm quite happy with this (thanks David for suggesting it
>> and Carl for telling me how to do it!)
>>
>> I've put this in and played around with it. It is definitely
>> *much* faster for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> I'm not a fan of the (seemingly arbitrary) 256 limit. Real
> intervals have been suggested, why not do something like
>
> def exact_log(x, base=10): x = abs(x) approx = floor(RIF(x).log() /
> RIF(base).log()) min, max = int(ap
On Jan 28, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I'm not a fan of the (seemingly arbitrary) 256 limit. Real
intervals have been suggested, why not do something like
def exact_log(x, base=10): x = abs(x) approx = floor(RIF(x).log() /
RIF(base).log()) min, max = int(approx
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, that's what I was wondering about. An integer with 2^53 binary
digits eats up 1024 terabytes,
so it's gonna be a while before we run into trouble. Besides, we
could have an optional precision
argument that defaults to 53 at the moment, but can b
25 matches
Mail list logo
