Hello folks,
3.2 upon us and there is plenty of patches and/or spkgs in trac to be
reviewed, plenty of new bugs to fix and exciting new features to
implement and/or review. So come on over to trac and help out,
obviously until some of you have recovered from SD 10 or various other
conferences :)
Hello folks,
due to the init.sage vs. IPython SNAFU I have just released a Sage
3.1.4 with two additional small fixes. Sources and a sage.math only
binary (this time tested to extract :)) are in
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.1.4/
I had attempted to merge #4305 (
Wow, cool talk, almost works like a marketing folder for advanced
maths stuff. I think I should incorporate some examples in the tour/
research page on the website.
h
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscr
FYI, Matplotlib launched their new website:
http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/index.html
They use Sphinx to do the documentation and it looks really nice on the
website. They also used inline plotting, syntax highlighting of ipython
sessions, etc. in the site; it really looks nice. I'm gla
Hi William,
Looks great. If the last talk got me in the mood to work, this one has
me incredibly fired up! :)
Some minor corrections:
page 5: upper triangule -> upper triangular
page 21: Mestra -> Mestre
page 21: another modular X -> another module X (or possibly a different wording)
page 21: o
A few things that Craig didn't catch: :)
page 7: the exponent should be k, not 2k
page 9: "since such formulas perhaps do not exist" sounds weird to me; I
would say "since no such formulas are currently known"
page 10: "then have basis" should be "then have bases"
page 16: "are beautiful piece"
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Craig Citro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi William,
>
> Looks great. If the last talk got me in the mood to work, this one has
> me incredibly fired up! :)
Same here!
>
> Some minor corrections:
>
> page 5: upper triangule -> upper triangular
> page 21: Mestra
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Alex Ghitza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few things that Craig didn't catch: :)
Thanks!
> page 7: the exponent should be k, not 2k
> page 9: "since such formulas perhaps do not exist" sounds weird to me; I
> would say "since no such formulas are currently known
