I also find Robert D's take on this bizarre, but it just shows (again)
how different people have different instincts. For me, f = x^3 + x +
1 defines a polynomial, and polynomials define functions in an
unambiguous way, and that is it. But if you think of f as a symbolic
expression (as a traditi
Hi
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 05:42:02PM -0800, William Stein wrote:
> I skimmed the crypto tutorial and liked it. I really wish we
> had a bunch of domain-specific tutorials gathered together
> and included in a single book or directory with Sage,
> and on the website. I wrote one recently for al
Hi!
On Nov 6, 6:10 am, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Would you consider this weird if you read it in a paper, or
> >> would you know how to interpret it?
>
> >> "Let $f = x^3 + x + 1$ and consider $f(10)$."
>
> > I'm not so sure I know what to do with that.
Neither am I.
If I
With amd64 intrepid ibex, it builds fine but sage -testall
seems to have the same locking-up issues as with the alpha2 version.
I can ctrl c to get out of the doc files, and it will pass on to testing
the next one, but when I ctrl-c at
sage -t devel/sage/sage/libs/fplll/fplll.pyx
it kicks me out
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 5-Nov-08, at 8:55 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
>
>>
>> William Stein wrote:
>>
>>> Would you consider this weird if you read it in a paper, or
>>> would you know how to interpret it?
>>>
>>> "Let $f = x^3 + x + 1$ and
On my laptop which normally builds Sage fine I get this (at the end of
install.log):
sage-3.2.alpha3/.hg/store/data/sagebuild.py.i
sage-3.2.alpha3/.hg/store/data/setup.py.d
sage-3.2.alpha3/.hg/store/data/setup.py.i
sage-3.2.alpha3/.hg/store/data/setupnb.py.i
sage-3.2.alpha3/.hg/store/data/spkg-de
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:51 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With amd64 intrepid ibex, it builds fine but sage -testall
> seems to have the same locking-up issues as with the alpha2 version.
> I can ctrl c to get out of the doc files, and it will pass on to testing
> the next one, but
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> here goes 3.2.alpha3 - somewhat later than planned. Hopefully we
> fixed all numerical doctest noise from #788 (I even reverted a small
> number of changes) and otherwise merged a couple other nice patches.
On Nov 6, 4:11 am, Jan Groenewald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about being able to click on "tutorial" somewhere near "new worksheet"
> in the sage notebook? Which could present you cell by cell with explanatory
> text, and then you execute the command to continue, and get a chance to try
>
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Rob Beezer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In the spirit of "release early" I've added my (incomplete) notes on
> graph theory commands to the Documentation Project wiki. These are
You meant "group theory" not "graph theory".
I looked at it briefly.
On page 3, th
Hi,
on Core2 Duo Intel OS X 10.4.11 (Xcdoe 2.5) Sage.3.2.alpha3 builds
fine.
I immediately ran "MAKE testlong", and it only gives the two long
known
failures (trac tickets in the 3xxx range):
--
The following tests failed:
On Debian stable 32-bit one test fails:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/interfaces/r.py
**
File "/local/data/huss/software/sage-3.2.alpha3/tmp/r.py", line 549:
sage: r.library('foobar')
Expected:
Traceback (most recent call last
Build ok and all tests pass on here (32-bit linux):
Linux version 2.6.16.60-0.31-smp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2
20070115 (SUSE Linux)) #1 SMP Tue Oct 7 16:16:29 UTC 2008
and here (64-bit linux):
Linux version 2.6.24-19-generic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.2.3
(Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ub
> > It would likely be better to start a page on wiki.sagemath.org.
> > Could you do so?Then Harald Schilly (sagemath.org webmaster)
> > could add a prominent link to that page.
>
> You mean on how to get files there or a page to aggregate the talks?
> Because I, as a newbie to sage, don't kno
Hi all,
Asking sage for the coxeter matrix of G2 returns
[ 1 7 ]
[ 7 1 ]
and I think the 7's should be 6's. I looked through bug reports but
didn't find anything on this, so I think it's new.
best,
Daniel
SAGE Version 3.1.2, Release Date: 2008-09-19
sage: coxeter_matrix('G2')
[1 7]
[7 1]
sage
David,
Thanks for the peek and the corrections. And thanks for permission to
use material from your group theory write-up, which I found very
helpful as I got started.
Yes, GROUP theory. Graph theory will be next. ;-)
Available off the wiki, but I also meant to include a link:
http://buzzard
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> here goes 3.2.alpha3 - somewhat later than planned. Hopefully we
> fixed all numerical doctest noise from #788 (I even reverted a small
> number of changes) and otherwise merged a couple other nice patches.
>
> If this release builds and doctests fine it will
Whatever caused that I don't know, but I started again from a fresh
download and all was fine. Sorry for the noise.
2008/11/6 John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On my laptop which normally builds Sage fine I get this (at the end of
> install.log):
>
> sage-3.2.alpha3/.hg/store/data/sagebuild.py
Hello David,
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:51 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With amd64 intrepid ibex, it builds fine but sage -testall
> seems to have the same locking-up issues as with the alpha2 version.
I'm too am using amd64 intrepid ibex and having the same issues.
The followin
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Rob Beezer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a question about hyperlinks between worksheets.
>
> I use extensive hyperlinks to reference between definitions, theorems
> and proofs. Within a worksheet (one section in the book) these work
> fine. I've done some
Thanks, William, for the reply.
Might not have been 100% clear about what works and what doesn't.
I can edit the text of simple demo worksheets by hand and get the
"name=" plus the "#" constructions to move from one worksheet to
another and land on the right location.
I use tex4ht to translate
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:51 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> With amd64 intrepid ibex, it builds fine but sage -testall
>> seems to have the same locking-up issues as with the alpha2 ver
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:09 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello David,
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:51 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> With amd64 intrepid ibex, it builds fine bu
Hi David, hi Franco,
currently Sage has a known weakness with the Maxima synchronization
resp. the lisp processes that are started by Maxima, which hits only
sporadically and seems to be related to dynamical memory allocation
done deep in the bowels of the lisp implementation.
It has never been
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for checking. I am mystified too.
>
> Other than a few hangs during testall, all tests besides lisp.py
> passed. Which was unexpected because I thought other code that relies
> on lisp.py would fail as well.
That'
If we change the name and nature of the objects a little bit, one can
actually write down examples where Robert D's interpretation is not so
outlandish.
For instance:
sage: var("D, x");
sage: f=D^2+D+1;
sage: f(x^3)
x^6 + x^3 + 1
In an article about differential operators, one would probably mea
> I believe there used to be such a license, and its use was so low
> that they discontinued it. However, I wonder if having the
> attribution in, e.g., the .tex source would be sufficient. This would
> probably be a good happy medium.
Taking a closer look at the CC site, I found this in
h
IANAM (I am not a mathematician), but from what I see, all the problem
comes from the fact that mathematical notation itself (in paper) may be
ambiguous. Imagine for example that you see in a paper $f(a+b)$. From
common notation one would guess that f is a function and that I'm
replacing it's vari
I don't see why every SymbolicExpression should be callable. In usual
mathematical practice this not
assumed, and expressions like x(3) are avoided or interpreted as 3x
(=3*x). Only when it is clear that
a symbolic name is a function name (like f,g) does function
application become the default.
Em Qui, 2008-11-06 às 12:02 -0800, Peter escreveu:
> I don't see why every SymbolicExpression should be callable. In usual
> mathematical practice this not
> assumed, and expressions like x(3) are avoided or interpreted as 3x
> (=3*x). Only when it is clear that
> a symbolic name is a function n
Hi Daniel,
There is a patch for it here:
http://sage.math.washington.edu:2144/file/2dbd13f9136f/coxeter_matrix_fixes-nt.patch
which should be in the next release of Sage (3.2).
--Mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegro
2008/11/6 John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Whatever caused that I don't know, but I started again from a fresh
> download and all was fine. Sorry for the noise.
-testall -long: all passed
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@go
On Nov 6, 12:42 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/6 John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Whatever caused that I don't know, but I started again from a fresh
> > download and all was fine. Sorry for the noise.
>
> -testall -long: all passed
Hi John,
I would have guess
On Nov 6, 6:11 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello folks,
>
> > here goes 3.2.alpha3 - somewhat later than planned. Hopefully we
> > fixed all numerical doctest noise from #788 (I even reverted a small
On Nov 6, 8:22 am, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As usual sources and a sage.math binary is in
>
> >http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.2/
>
> On Fedora 9, 32 bits:
> --
> The following
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:21 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 6:11 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello folks,
>>
>> > here goes 3.2.alpha3 - somewhat later than planned. Hopeful
On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Did you run the tests on the build farm or is
> > there coming more?
>
> I only built on bsd and sage.math and modular. I haven't
> built on the build farm. Should I?
Yeah, that would be great. I am curious if we should push
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> > Did you run the tests on the build farm or is
>> > there coming more?
>>
>> I only built on bsd and sage.math and modular. I haven't
>> built on th
On Nov 6, 1:28 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, that would be great. I am curious if we should push for an rc0
> > fixing only critical bugs in the next 24 hours to release shortly or
> > if we shoul
mabshoff wrote:
> Jaap,
>
> can you please open a ticket for that one. I suspect that we don't
> have anything tested via long or that the tests aren't properly marked
> "#long time". This one has popped up so often that we really ought to
> fix it once and for all since you hit it every time.
>
On Nov 5, 10:10 pm, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this bizarre. I am absolutely certain that I want to view $f$
> as a polynomial in one variable and evaluate it at 10.
That's nice. I wouldn't want to stand in your way.
What is worrisome here is that you are all too ready t
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Let $f:R\to R$ be defined by $f = x^3+x+1$."
>
> I would consider this a (fairly harmless) typo, since the author
> surely meant "...defined by $f(x) = x^3+x+1$."
What if the author really did mean just what he wrote?
How could he express it
On Nov 3, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Robert Dodier wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, if we did allow automatic creation of symbolic
>> variables, and default calling of symbolic expressions, then
>> doing something like this would happen
>> all the time and confuse the crap out of people:
>
On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
> On Nov 5, 10:10 pm, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I find this bizarre. I am absolutely certain that I want to view $f$
>> as a polynomial in one variable and evaluate it at 10.
>
> That's nice. I wouldn't want to stand in your w
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 at 01:09PM -0500, David Joyner wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/sagefiles/sage-3.2.alpha3$ ./sage -t
> devel/sage/sage/interfaces/lisp.py
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/interfaces/lisp.py
> [11.8 s]
I'm using Intrepid amd64 and get the same failures as Franco.
> [EMAIL PROTEC
All tests passed on my intel mac, running 10.4. I am building and
testing on a PPC 10.4 as well, but I won't be awake when that
finishes.
-Marshall
On Nov 6, 9:41 pm, Dan Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 at 01:09PM -0500, David Joyner wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/sagefil
OK, I reran the experiment, but on sagenb.org this time, and
everything works as it should. Not sure what the problem was, but I
guess my local configuration has shortcomings. I know my initital
tests with jsMath a few months ago (outside of Sage) were problematic
due to some problems with Firef
47 matches
Mail list logo
