Thanks for the explanations!
For my own build, I recovered by doing "sage -ba" as previously
reported. So I don't know whether the original problem (running sage
for the first time after an apparently successful build) was caused by
the SAGE_PBUILD thing or not. Before doing "sage -ba" I also d
On May 2, 3:19 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks good to me. I think Python is actually in the top 5 languages
> now, isn't it?
just for completeness, released today: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10065
- Readers' Choice Awards 2008 / Favorite Scripting Language: Python
On May 1, 2008, at 5:49 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On May 1, 2008, at 2:51 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I wrote a new version of my ISSAC talk abstract. What do you think:
>>>
>>> http://sage.math.
Dear William,
On May 2, 12:23 am, "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The previous abstract (the second one?, definitely not the first)
> seemed like a good balance to me: What is Sage? What can it do?
I agree.
The second abstract contains the message (among other things):
1. "If you have
Dear William,
I am sorry about my previous post, since it was out-dated. My comment
did only refer to message number 25 in this thread and to the abstract
version at http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/tmp/abstract.pdf
Now, we have http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/tmp/abstract3.pdf,
On Apr 29, 7:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
> Hi,
>
> I've made a trac ticket for this, since it seems to have got stalled:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3052
>
> William
Robert,
I have come across a case that
[CC to sage-devel - this email somehow didn't make it on first try :(]
Hi guys,
When I apply both patches from #2755 to my 3.0.1.rc0 merge tree I get
the following failure in totallyreal_rel.py:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.py
*
Harald Schilly wrote:
> On May 2, 3:19 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hi,
>> Looks good to me. I think Python is actually in the top 5 languages
>> now, isn't it?
>>
>
> just for completeness, released today:
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10065
> - Readers' Choic
On May 1, 5:01 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> There are two problems here:
>
> a) somebody changed the default 404 error page [we know who did it,
> but no need to name names]
> b) consequently the download_package command fails since it no longer
> recognizes the 404 page
John Cremona wrote:
Hi,
> Thanks for the explanations!
>
> For my own build, I recovered by doing "sage -ba" as previously
> reported. So I don't know whether the original problem (running sage
> for the first time after an apparently successful build) was caused by
> the SAGE_PBUILD thing or no
I decided to go ahead and open a ticket for it with a patch for spkg-
install.
I noticed that the CXXFLAGS needed a bit of spring cleaning as well.
The ticket is #3079.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubsc
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I decided to go ahead and open a ticket for it with a patch for spkg-
> install.
> I noticed that the CXXFLAGS needed a bit of spring cleaning as well.
> The ticket is #3079.
I noticed and saw the CXXFLAGS issue. That puzzle
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the idea to use a Live CD is a very good one. It is good when
> people have the opportunity to try sage right on the spot.
Is there anyone in the list that can share binaries of Sage 3.x for
Fedora Core 3 (a higher
On Apr 29, 10:00 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon's vision of lattices would include the ones I mentioned before
> (f.g. but not necessarily free R-modules where R is a Dedekind Domain,
> with one or more embeddings into RR^n or CC^n).
>
> In another direction: Jon, to what exte
On May 2, 2:02 pm, "Alfredo Portes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the idea to use a Live CD is a very good one. It is good when
> > people have the opportunity to try sage right on the spot.
>
> Is there anyone in
FYI: William's ISSAC abstract is on reddit's frontpage right now.
http://reddit.com/info/6hvsn/comments/
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Martin Albrecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FYI: William's ISSAC abstract is on reddit's frontpage right now.
>
> http://reddit.com/info/6hvsn/comments/
>
> Martin
>
Wow, it seems to have definitely touched a nerve.
There are also now a number of comments on
Yes, the ordering of the elements does not at all affect the
correctness of the output--the most mathematically correct thing would
be to output a set. This change can be due to any number of things,
but it's probably not worth ascertaining the exact cause.
JV
--~--~-~--~~-
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, the ordering of the elements does not at all affect the
> correctness of the output--the most mathematically correct thing would
> be to output a set. This change can be due to any number of things,
> but it's probably
This looks like a dict was involved at some point - maybe just sorting
the list would be enough?
On May 2, 8:23 am, "Michael Abshoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, the ordering of the elements does not at all affect th
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Martin Albrecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FYI: William's ISSAC abstract is on reddit's frontpage right now.
>
> http://reddit.com/info/6hvsn/comments/
>
> Martin
>
Since it seems to spark discussion I posted it to digg:
http://digg.com/software/Can_Th
fan_0.3-0sagep3~debian4.1 on debuild by sbuild/amd64 0.57.0
Build started at 20080502-1206
**
gfan_0.3-0sagep3.dsc exists in .; copying to chroot
** Using build dependencies supplied by package:
Build-Depends: cdbs (>
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Timothy G Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I attempted to build the 3.0.1alpha1 packages for Debian, but it doesn't
> build, apparently due to some type errors. The build log is attached --
> I'd appreciate any guesses as to what's going on here.
>
>-Tim
Hi,
In that reddit discussion of my blog post I mentioned that SciLab
(http://www.scilab.org/) is
released under a custom GPL-incompatible license when somebody asked
about SciLab.
Also I mentioned that SciLab violates the GPL by linking in readline.
Very interestingly, somebody posted that the
Is there a canonical way to sort elements of an algebraic number
field? I can think of one or two, but this is a needlessly costly
thing to do, IMHO.
JV
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
On 2-May-08, at 9:46 AM, John Voight wrote:
>
> Is there a canonical way to sort elements of an algebraic number
> field? I can think of one or two, but this is a needlessly costly
> thing to do, IMHO.
You're asking for a canonical representation, which amounts to a
canonical choice of a defi
Michael and Sage-devel,
This is happening a lot (see below):
> I was trying to create a random matrix with single digit integer
entries using
> B = random_matrix(ZZ,100,x=0,x=9)
>
> I get the following error and the worksheet seems to break down after that.
> /usr/local/sage/local/bin/s
Alfredo,
I can try to build a Sage binary on Fedora 3 if you wish
but I'm not optimistic. I know that my Fedora 5 could not
build Sage because the compiler was too old. Fedora 3
likely has the same issue.
Tim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send emai
On May 2, 7:56 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael and Sage-devel,
No need to single me out - I read sage-devel ;)
> This is happening a lot (see below):
> We really need to find a way to *immediately* report that
> "this Sage binary doesn't work on your processor" ASA
On May 2, 9:18 pm, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alfredo,
Hi Tim,
> I can try to build a Sage binary on Fedora 3 if you wish
> but I'm not optimistic. I know that my Fedora 5 could not
> build Sage because the compiler was too old.
The compiler wasn't too old, it was *borken*, i.e. "inter
William Stein wrote:
> Michael and Sage-devel,
>
> This is happening a lot (see below):
>
> > I was trying to create a random matrix with single digit integer
> entries using
> > B = random_matrix(ZZ,100,x=0,x=9)
> >
> > I get the following error and the worksheet seems to break down afte
>> I can try to build a Sage binary on Fedora 3 if you wish
>> but I'm not optimistic. I know that my Fedora 5 could not
>> build Sage because the compiler was too old.
>
>The compiler wasn't too old, it was *borken*, i.e. "internal compiler
>error". IIRC it was some gcc 4.1.0 and as well all know
On May 2, 8:06 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
Hi,
> Steal the CPU detection code from ATLAS and use that to test to see if
> the processor we're running on is the same as the processor we compiled
> for? That seems like a bit much.
You really don't want to do
Oleksandr Pavlyk reports on the Wolfram Blog that he has computed the
10 millionth Bernoulli number using Mathematica:
http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/04/29/today-we-broke-the-bernoulli-record-from-the-analytical-engine-to-mathematica/
How does sage's Bernoulli number implementation compare? I'd lik
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Very interestingly, somebody posted that the next major release of
> SciLab will be
> GPL-compatible. See
> http://www.scilab.org/download/index_download.php?page=CHANGES_5.0-beta-1
>
> This means there is pot
It takes about 30 seconds on my machine to get the 10^5 Bernoulli
number. The mathematica blog says it took a "development" version of
mathematica 6 days to do the 10^7 calc. So it would probably take
some work, but we are not that badly off as is.
-M. Hampton
On May 2, 12:34 pm, Fredrik Joha
On May 2, 2008, at 2:56 PM, mhampton wrote:
> It takes about 30 seconds on my machine to get the 10^5 Bernoulli
> number. The mathematica blog says it took a "development" version of
> mathematica 6 days to do the 10^7 calc. So it would probably take
> some work, but we are not that badly off
I might take a look at this, as there are some ways fo computing B nos
which are very much faster tha others, and not everyone knows them.
Pari has something respectable, certainly.
John
2008/5/2 mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> It takes about 30 seconds on my machine to get the 10^5 Bernoulli
Now would I know non-SSE hardware if I met it in the wild?
John
2008/5/2 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On May 2, 8:06 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> > Steal the CPU detection code from ATLAS and use that to test to see if
> > the proces
ok, so the docstring reaveals (1) that the pari version is "by far the
fastest" as I suspected, but also that for n>5 that we use a gp
interface rather than the pari library " since the C-library interface
to PARI
is limited in memory for individual operations" -- whatever that means!
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Fredrik Johansson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oleksandr Pavlyk reports on the Wolfram Blog that he has computed the
> 10 millionth Bernoulli number using Mathematica:
>
> http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/04/29/today-we-broke-the-bernoulli-record-from-the-analyti
On May 2, 9:04 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi John,
> Now would I know non-SSE hardware if I met it in the wild?
On Linux:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/scratch/mabshoff/release-cycle/sage-3.0.1.rc0$ cat /
proc/cpuinfo | grep flags
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 a
Thanks. I thought I had something old, but it's not *that* old!
John
2008/5/2 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On May 2, 9:04 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
> > Now would I know non-SSE hardware if I met it in the wild?
>
> On Linux:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Fredrik Johansson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oleksandr Pavlyk reports on the Wolfram Blog that he has computed the
> 10 millionth Bernoulli number using Mathematica:
>
> http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/04/29/today-we-broke-the-bernoulli-record-from-the-analyti
On May 2, 2008, at 3:40 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Also, when I tried
>
> bernoulli(10^7+2)
>
> directly in Sage there were a couple of issues that arose, since
> that command
> is much more designed for smaller input. I fixed those small issues.
> I guess we'll see in a week ..
I hope
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:40 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Fredrik Johansson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > Oleksandr Pavlyk reports on the Wolfram Blog that he has computed the
> > 10 millionth Bernoulli number using Mathematica:
>
I think the asymptotics aren't going to go our way if we use pari. It
takes 11s for 10^5 and I've been sitting here for quite a few minutes
and didn't get 10^6 yet.
I think pari uses the zeta function to compute bernoulli numbers.
If I'm reading the code right it first computes 1/zeta(n) using t
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:10 PM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ok, so the docstring reaveals (1) that the pari version is "by far the
> fastest" as I suspected, but also that for n>5 that we use a gp
> interface rather than the pari library " since the C-library interface
> t
On May 2, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I think the asymptotics aren't going to go our way if we use pari. It
> takes 11s for 10^5 and I've been sitting here for quite a few minutes
> and didn't get 10^6 yet.
So far I have on a 2.6GHz opteron:
sage: time x = bernoulli(6)
Wall time:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 3:40 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > Also, when I tried
> >
> > bernoulli(10^7+2)
> >
> > directly in Sage there were a couple of issues that arose, since
> > that command
> > is much more
On May 2, 2008, at 3:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
> The complexity mostly depends on the precision one uses in
> computing a certain Euler product approximation to zeta
> and also the number of factors in the product. If you look
> at the PARI source code the comments do *not* inspire confidence
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 3:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > The complexity mostly depends on the precision one uses in
> > computing a certain Euler product approximation to zeta
> > and also the number of factors in the
Funny this should come up. William just gave a take-home midterm in which we
had to predict the runtime for various computations, so I wrote some generic
code to help. According to my code, and some liberal assumptions, it should
take 5.1 days. I've attached the plots that show the curves I f
On May 2, 2008, at 4:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Funny this should come up. William just gave a take-home midterm
> in which we had to predict the runtime for various computations, so
> I wrote some generic code to help. According to my code, and some
> liberal assumptions, it shou
Sorry, the y-axis in the lower plot is log(time in seconds).
On Fri, 2 May 2008, David Harvey wrote:
>
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 4:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Funny this should come up. William just gave a take-home midterm
>> in which we had to predict the runtime for various computatio
I am more or less done my draft of a Sage/Cython article for
OpenWetWare. I think this is a good minor opportunity to expose a
different community to Sage. The bioinformatics community is already
fairly pro-open-source, and OpenWetWare readers are self-selected to
be more so. Before it is made
One more data point (2.6GHz opteron):
sage: time x = bernoulli(6)
Wall time: 3.79
sage: time x = bernoulli(12)
Wall time: 16.97
sage: time x = bernoulli(24)
Wall time: 118.24
sage: time x = bernoulli(48)
Wall time: 540.25
sage: time x = bernoulli(96)
Wall time: 2436.06
Th
On May 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On May 2, 8:06 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Steal the CPU detection code from ATLAS and use that to test to
>> see if
>> the processor we're running on is the same as the processor we
>> compiled
Here is some more information about the machine used to compute this:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Oleksandr Pavlyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Today We Broke the Bernoulli Record: From the Analytical
Engine to Mathematica
To: didier deshomm
On May 2, 10:34 pm, "didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is some more information about the machine used to compute this:
Hi,
> Hi Didier,
>
> I used Linux, with 64 bit AMD processor:
>
> AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 250
> cpu MHz : 1000.000
> cache size : 1024 KB
On May 2, 10:28 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On May 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> > Could we use a bunch on non-SSE2 Athlons with
> > decent, i.e. 1GB RAM, this would be doable.
>
> I'm sure the UW Math department has machines that old which we could
> get for
On May 2, 2008, at 2:39 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 29, 7:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've made a trac ticket for this, since it seems to have got stalled:
>>
>>http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/305
I did some computations using von Staudt's theorem and up to 40 no
errors. Of course that doesn't prove anything for much larger n.
Bill.
On 2 May, 21:04, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 20
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On May 2, 2008, at 2:39 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 7:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've made a trac ticket for this, since it seems to have got stalled:
>>>
>>>http://tr
The Sage lab on UW campus has a lot of shelf space :-)
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:43 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 2, 10:28 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > Could we use a bunch on non-SSE
Hi!
On May 2, 10:17 pm, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am more or less done my draft of a Sage/Cython article for
> OpenWetWare. I think this is a good minor opportunity to expose a
> different community to Sage. The bioinformatics community is already
> fairly pro-open-source, and Ope
The theoretical complexity of all the algorithms that rely on
recurrences is supposed to be n^2. But this doesn't take into account
the size of the numbers themselves. When you do this they are all
about n^3 as far as I can see. You can use Ramanujan identities, the
Akiyama-Tanigawa algorithm, the
On May 3, 4:25 am, "Michael Abshoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Timothy G Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I attempted to build the 3.0.1alpha1 packages for Debian, but it doesn't
> > build, apparently due to some type errors. The build log is attached -
I think this is interesting too but was unable to compile it nor get
the binary to work.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Hector Villafuerte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Very interestingly, somebody posted
Hi,
built fine of Arch linux 32 bit without any change, didn't run tests
yet but will soon...
anyway small off-topic - I was making spkg for R 2.7 and RPy 1.0.2 to
see if it would work (2.7 have some nice Cairo graphics driver in
addition to X11 and others, examples from wiki already works), but
Actually, it might be n/log(n) steps, so the time might be something
like n^2 though there are other terms involved.
Bill.
On 3 May, 00:30, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The theoretical complexity of all the algorithms that rely on
> recurrences is supposed to be n^2. But this doesn't t
On May 3, 1:50 am, Andrzej Giniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> built fine of Arch linux 32 bit without any change, didn't run tests
> yet but will soon...
>
> anyway small off-topic - I was making spkg for R 2.7 and RPy 1.0.2 to
> see if it would work (2.7 have some nice Cairo graphic
On May 2, 7:31 pm, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got it! -IGMPRATIONAL should be -DGMPRATIONAL
> Do not know where that came from in your package.
>
> Francois
Indeed; that was a typo in my package introduced when I fixed a
different bug. It would have probably taken me a long time to
On May 3, 6:41 am, tabbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 2, 7:31 pm, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I got it! -IGMPRATIONAL should be -DGMPRATIONAL
> > Do not know where that came from in your package.
>
> > Francois
>
> Indeed; that was a typo in my package introduced when I fi
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:41 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think this is interesting too but was unable to compile it nor get
> the binary to work.
>
So I downloaded these two packages for scilab-5.0-beta-1:
http://www.scilab.org/download/5.0-beta-1/prerequirements-scilab-5
Hello,
This is the end of the 3.0.1 release cycle. The build was announced
in IRC about eight hours ago, but since I took a long nap in the
meantime I never posted to sage-devel ;)
Gary's pbuild has been improved and three bugs have been fixed.
Please try it out again for feedback. To use pbu
76 matches
Mail list logo
