[sage-devel] Re: CUDD

Hello! > > There is no direct interface to CUDD, at least not in the PolyBoRi > > wrappers. You can see the code for the wrappers in the files: > > > c_lib/include/pb_wrap.h > > sage/libs/polybori/decl.pxi > > sage/rings/polynomial/pbori.p{yx,xd} > > > The last one (.pyx) is the most interesting.

[sage-devel] Re: CUDD

On 26 Feb., 09:02, Alexander Dreyer wrote: > Hello!> > There is no direct interface to CUDD, at least not in the PolyBoRi > > > wrappers. You can see the code for the wrappers in the files: > > > > c_lib/include/pb_wrap.h > > > sage/libs/polybori/decl.pxi > > > sage/rings/polynomial/pbori.p{yx,

[sage-devel] Re: reusing solutions in functions

Carl, I should thank you in advance for your great help. Unfortunately, the dumps test doesn't improve the result: time test = loads(dumps(G_igr_d.subs(paramsd))) Time: CPU 13.32 s, Wall: 33.21 s Moreover, I'm working from the notebook, so I am not able to get the backtrace by interrupting the

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Dear Sebastien and Vincent, > I like more something like this (_len_). We should also impose that > the cardinality must be a SAGE Integer or +Infinity and this should be > integrate in the core of SAGE. > > 2009/2/26, Sébastien Labbé : > > Couldn't we define something like : > > > > def _

[sage-devel] Interactive plot desiderata collection

Hi all, as you know, Kenny and me recently worked on a notebook demo to show the possibility to include a javascript enhanced plot package (namely FLOT) into the SAGE notebook. The demo is currently hosted at: http://www.sagenb.org/pub/285/ As you can see, this is just a proof of concept. Do an

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Cardinality of a set...

Dear William > I like s.cardinality() since that's what I've used often already all > over in Sage. > Do > > sage: search_src('cardinality') > Arglll !!! I had this idea and issued an tomahawk-*ge-combinat/sage $ grep def\ cardinality\( **/*.py* | wc 11 35 533 which was a

[sage-devel] [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Dear Carl, > How about s.size()? > > I don't particularly like s.card(), because the abbreviation is too > opaque -- it would be nice if somebody seeing the method for the first > time has a good chance of guessing what it means. Sure ! That was my first motivation for asking widely this

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Hi Vincent Delecroix, > There is a difference at the interpreter level, look at : > sage: timeit('len(l)') > 625 loops, best of 3: 229 ns per loop > sage: timeit('l.__len__()') > 625 loops, best of 3: 442 ns per loop > > I don't know exactly why. Perhaps the len() do not have to parse the

[sage-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Hi, Despite the length, I prefer cardinality() since card() is vague and obscure (and len(), size(), and count() ambiguous). I would argue that cardinality(), as distinct from len(), should consistently return a Sage Integer (or some concept of cardinal number) rather than a Python int. sage:

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.4.alpha0 released - ReST patch update

Hi, is currently someone working on trac #4933 (lots of files in sage.schemes.elliptic_curves are not included in the reference manual)? Or is it intended to get these missing files' documentation in 3.4 (as opposed to 3.4.1 or even later)? If so, I kindly ask to consider first to integrate tick

[sage-devel] Re: Interactive plot desiderata collection

Maurizio wrote: > Hi all, > > as you know, Kenny and me recently worked on a notebook demo to show > the possibility to include a javascript enhanced plot package (namely > FLOT) into the SAGE notebook. > > The demo is currently hosted at: http://www.sagenb.org/pub/285/ > > As you can see, this

[sage-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Dear David, > Natural numbers are missing, but it is not clear that one > implementation > will suit all intended uses: > >1) as a poset with i <= i+j (extended by other cardinalities); >2) as a poset with i <= i*j; >3) as an additive abelian monoid; >4) as a multiplicative

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Cardinality of a set...

Florent Hivert wrote: > Dear William > >> I like s.cardinality() since that's what I've used often already all >> over in Sage. >> Do >> >> sage: search_src('cardinality') >> > > Arglll !!! I had this idea and issued an > > tomahawk-*ge-combinat/sage $ grep def\ cardinality\( **/*.py* |

[sage-devel] Re: Double transpose on right_kernel()

Hi, As I have been creditted by William with the free modules as row vectors and default left kernel for matrices (under the influence of Magma), let me propose a coherent way to relax this design decision. It should be easy to add an argument to free modules to create them as column spaces and

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.4.alpha0 released - ReST patch update

On Feb 26, 2:51 am, "Georg S. Weber" wrote: > Hi, Hi Georg, > is currently someone working on trac #4933 (lots of files in > sage.schemes.elliptic_curves are not included in the reference > manual)? > Or is it intended to get these missing files' documentation in 3.4 (as > opposed to 3.4.1 or

[sage-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

> Please vote for your favorite names: > - NaturalNumbers > - Naturals > - NaturalIntegers > - NonNegativeIntegers > / > - PositiveNaturals > - PositiveIntegers If I'd have a say... then I would choose NonNegativeInteger and PositiveIntegers, because nobody agrees on whether or not 0 is

[sage-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

On Feb 26, 5:26 am, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > > Please vote for your favorite names: > >  - NaturalNumbers > >  - Naturals > >  - NaturalIntegers > >  - NonNegativeIntegers > > / > >  - PositiveNaturals > >  - PositiveIntegers > > If I'd have a say... then I would choose NonNegativeInteger and > P

[sage-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Just to make life complicated, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_number and then http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_positif Yes, it seems that "positive" means >0 in English and ">=0" in French. (I suppose "nonnegative" means >=0 in English and >0 in French. The French for

[sage-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Dear Kiran > Just to make life complicated, have a look at > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_number > > and then > > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_positif > > Yes, it seems that "positive" means >0 in English and ">=0" in French. > (I suppose "nonnegative" means >=0

[sage-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Interesting... Oh those french... ;-) So do natural numbers in France always include the zero? To cite my math professor (from Germany) at the time when I was a student. Null ist alles andere als natürlich. That's a pun! Remember that it took quite a long time until the 0 was inv

[sage-devel] Re: Notebook editing and interactive plotting (jquery?)

> I have no Mac, so I can't test it on Safari, sorry Sorry, I had popups disabled. Beautiful! - kcrisman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@

[sage-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

> So do natural numbers in France always include the zero? Sure !!! Peano rulez !!! That's makes me wondering if sage really improves me mathematical creativity ! Let me see some of my recent work: Ticket #5256: coherent handling of trivial matrices # Check that the empty 0x0 matrix is i

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Cardinality of a set...

Jason Grout wrote: > I think in general, the definition goes with the most descriptive name > (e.g., cardinality). Sometimes a shorter alias is then created to make > typing easier (e.g., card). An example of this the adjacency matrix of > a graph. We have g.adjacency_matrix, but we also have

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.4.alpha0 released - ReST patch update

mabshoff wrote: > Hello folks, > > this is Sage 3.4.alpha0, more or less on time. We merged a massive > number of ReST patches (Mike Hansen) and additionally fixed a number > of long standing libSingular issues (Georg Weber, Carl Witty, William > Stein, Michael Abshoff) as well as also fixed the

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.4.alpha0 released - ReST patch update

On Feb 26, 8:23 am, Jaap Spies wrote: > mabshoff wrote: > > Hello folks, > > > this is Sage 3.4.alpha0, more or less on time. We merged a massive > > number of ReST patches (Mike Hansen) and additionally fixed a number > > of long standing libSingular issues (Georg Weber, Carl Witty, William >

[sage-devel] Re: simplicial complexes, chain complexes, and their homology

There is now a patch on the trac server implementing simplicial complexes and their homology: John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this g

[sage-devel] Re: #auto is still broken in Sage 3.3

I had restarted the computer after the upgrade due to another system update, so all of sage was completely restarted. Regardless, its reporting the correct version in all areas since I've recompiled and #auto is workng correctly now. On Feb 25, 11:00 pm, William Stein wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 20

[sage-devel] Re: reusing solutions in functions

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Maurizio wrote: > > Carl, > I should thank you in advance for your great help. > > Unfortunately, the dumps test doesn't improve the result: > > time test = loads(dumps(G_igr_d.subs(paramsd))) > Time: CPU 13.32 s, Wall: 33.21 s > > Moreover, I'm working from the

[sage-devel] Re: reusing solutions in functions

You are certainly very kind. I really appreciate your help. I'm going to email you the expressions. Thank you On 26 Feb, 18:15, Carl Witty wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Maurizio wrote: > > > Carl, > > I should thank you in advance for your great help. > > > Unfortunately, the dump

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Cardinality of a set...

>> I like s.cardinality() since that's what I've used often already all >> over in Sage. >> Do >> >> sage: search_src('cardinality') >> > >Arglll !!! I had this idea and issued an > >tomahawk-*ge-combinat/sage $ grep def\ cardinality\( **/*.py* | wc > 11 35 533 > >which was a pretty

[sage-devel] Re: Notebook editing and interactive plotting (jquery?)

another pleasantly impressed person interesting! :) On 26 Feb, 16:48, kcrisman wrote: > > I have no Mac, so I can't test it on Safari, sorry > > Sorry, I had popups disabled.  Beautiful! > > - kcrisman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to

[sage-devel] Re: Notebook editing and interactive plotting (jquery?)

On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Kenny wrote: > > I've done as you told me... > > http://sagenb.org/home/pub/285/ > > this is the public worksheet. It launch a popup windows so pls enable > popup to see it working. I tested it under Firefox and google chrome. > It does NOT work with IE, think the b

[sage-devel] Re: Notebook editing and interactive plotting (jquery?)

On Feb 24, 8:42 pm, Tom Boothby wrote: > I should point out that the div is *outside* of the interact.  This is > because when one changes the contents of the interact, it's choppy. > However, if you do all your work in the fixed size div, there's no > choppiness at all, it just suddenly change

[sage-devel] Inverse laplace transform and Post integration formula - symbolic derivative?

Hi all, has any of you ever needed the kth derivative of an expression, where k is a symbolic variable? Is this possible in SAGE? This is coming from the desire to implement the Post's inverse laplace formula. I've posted in sage-support. If interested, please have a look and (possibly) give com

[sage-devel] Re: Notebook editing and interactive plotting (jquery?)

Yes, the tooltips are being showed only where the data points are provided, and no interpolation is provided for intermediate points. I don't know if I would really require that feature, because this is supposed just to show the data we provide, not necessarily any more. Moreover, basically MATL

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.4.alpha0 released - ReST patch update

mabshoff wrote: > > > On Feb 26, 8:23 am, Jaap Spies wrote: >> mabshoff wrote: >>> Hello folks, >>> this is Sage 3.4.alpha0, more or less on time. We merged a massive >>> number of ReST patches (Mike Hansen) and additionally fixed a number >>> of long standing libSingular issues (Georg Weber, C

[sage-devel] Re: Inverse laplace transform and Post integration formula - symbolic derivative?

On Feb 26, 10:01 am, Maurizio wrote: > Hi all, Hi Maurizio, > has any of you ever needed the kth derivative of an expression, where > k is a symbolic variable? > Is this possible in SAGE? Initially I thought this would obviously work, but I guess you are right that there is a problem: sage:

[sage-devel] Re: Inverse laplace transform and Post integration formula - symbolic derivative?

Well, I'm glad to have arisen a fruitful discussion. Furthermore, I think the problem related to what I cited is even more subtle. What I'd like to do is (provided that func has a single variable): limit( diff ( func, k), k = oo) that is the k-th derivative of the function, where k tends to In

[sage-devel] Re: Inverse laplace transform and Post integration formula - symbolic derivative?

I don't know whether this can be helpful to anyone, but in Wikipedia they cite another reference for this kind of derivatives computation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunwald-Letnikov_differintegral Regards Maurizio On 26 Feb, 19:23, Maurizio wrote: > Well, > I'm glad to have arisen a fruitf

[sage-devel] Re: reusing solutions in functions

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Maurizio wrote: > > You are certainly very kind. > I really appreciate your help. I'm going to email you the expressions. The files are now available at http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/cwitty/slow-substitution/ I won't be able to look at them until this even

[sage-devel] [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Florent Hivert wrote: > We were going to use s.count() until someone pointed out than there is a > collision with a standard python methods for list. > >   s.count(x) >      return number of i‘s for which s[i] == x > > Other suggestion are: >  - s.length() : this

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Hi Sébastien! >Couldn't we define something like : > >def _len_(self): >return ... > >that behave like we want as it is done for _str_ and _repr_ ? That could be an option. But: - It can be confusing for the user to have two functions with almost the same name

[sage-devel] Re: tensor products (yet again)

Dear John, On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 07:44:12PM -0800, John H Palmieri wrote: > > I am doing some computations involving tensor products of vector > spaces, and I wouldn't mind using Sage. Does anyone have any relevant > code that I could use/steal/appropriate? In return, if I feel > inspi

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Hi Carl! > How about s.size()? We had removed it from our list of alternatives, because we will be using the concept of "size" elsewhere in combinatorics (the size of a tree, of a permutation, and more generally of a combinatorial object), and we could run into a conflict later on. Howev

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.4.alpha0 released - ReST patch update

On 26 Feb., 12:57, mabshoff wrote: > On Feb 26, 2:51 am, "Georg S. Weber" > wrote: > > > Hi, > > Hi Georg, > > > is currently someone working on trac #4933 (lots of files in > > sage.schemes.elliptic_curves are not included in the reference > > manual)? > > Or is it intended to get these missi

[sage-devel] minimum rank worksheet

Leslie, I published the minimum rank worksheet at: http://sagenb.org/home/pub/293 The code is in the top block and is hidden by default. Click on the "hide" to show it. It is automatically evaluated when you start the sheet, so you should be able to immediately execute the rest of the cells

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > Hi Sébastien! > >>Couldn't we define something like : >> >>def _len_(self): >>return ... >> >>that behave like we want as it is done for _str_ and _repr_ ? > > That could be an option. But: > > - It can be confusin

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > Hi Carl! > >> How about s.size()? > > We had removed it from our list of alternatives, because we will be > using the concept of "size" elsewhere in combinatorics (the size of a > tree, of a permutation, and more generally of a combinatorial object), > and we cou

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

> BTW, NonNegative- and PostiveIntegers were implemented by David Roe > as part of the Coercion branch, but never ended up getting merged > over (partially due to lack of doctests). Thanks for the info. But now the obvious question is what should I do here ? I can't find any trace of this in

[sage-devel] Re: minimum rank worksheet

Jason Grout wrote: > Leslie, > > I published the minimum rank worksheet at: http://sagenb.org/home/pub/293 > > The code is in the top block and is hidden by default. Click on the > "hide" to show it. It is automatically evaluated when you start the > sheet, so you should be able to immediate

[sage-devel] symbolic functions

Hi, am I doing something wrong here? If not, this is a bug... sage: f=function('f',x) sage: f f(x) sage: g(f,x)=f(x+1) sage: g (f, x) |--> x + 1 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group,

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Hi Jason, > > We had removed it from our list of alternatives, because we will be > > using the concept of "size" elsewhere in combinatorics (the size of a > > tree, of a permutation, and more generally of a combinatorial object), > > and we could run into a conflict later on. However, we d

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Florent Hivert wrote: > Hi Jason, > >>> We had removed it from our list of alternatives, because we will be >>> using the concept of "size" elsewhere in combinatorics (the size >>> of a >>> tree, of a permutation, and more generally of a combinatorial >>> o

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Florent Hivert wrote: > >> BTW, NonNegative- and PostiveIntegers were implemented by David Roe >> as part of the Coercion branch, but never ended up getting merged >> over (partially due to lack of doctests). > > Thanks for the info. But now the obvious question is w

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:22 PM, YannLC wrote: > Hi, > am I doing something wrong here? > If not, this is a bug... > > sage: f=function('f',x) > sage: f > f(x) > sage: g(f,x)=f(x+1) > sage: g > (f, x) |--> x + 1 When one writes g(f, x) it creates two variables f and x, and your original f is gone

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Florent Hivert wrote: > >> Hi Jason, >> We had removed it from our list of alternatives, because we will be using the concept of "size" elsewhere in combinatorics (the size of a tree, of a permutation, and more gen

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Feb 26, 9:40 pm, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:22 PM, YannLC wrote: > > > Hi, > > am I doing something wrong here? > > If not, this is a bug... > > > sage: f=function('f',x) > > sage: f > > f(x) > > sage: g(f,x)=f(x+1) > > sage: g > > (f, x) |--> x + 1 > > When one writes g

[sage-devel] Re: minimum rank worksheet

On Feb 26, 12:18 pm, Jason Grout wrote: > Jason Grout wrote: > > Leslie, Hi Jason, > > I published the minimum rank worksheet at:http://sagenb.org/home/pub/293 > > > The code is in the top block and is hidden by default.  Click on the > > "hide" to show it.  It is automatically evaluated when

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:15 PM, YannLC wrote: > On Feb 26, 9:40 pm, Robert Bradshaw > wrote: >> On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:22 PM, YannLC wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> am I doing something wrong here? >>> If not, this is a bug... >> >>> sage: f=function('f',x) >>> sage: f >>> f(x) >>> sage: g(f,x)=f(x+1) >>> sa

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

Forgive my stubborness, but you answered only half of my question :) do you think the following is a sane behavior? sage: var('f x') (f, x) sage: f(x+3) x+3 I would prefer a NotImplementedError... Yann On Feb 26, 11:14 pm, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:15 PM, YannLC w

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Feb 26, 2009, at 2:28 PM, YannLC wrote: > Forgive my stubborness, but you answered only half of my question :) > do you think the following is a sane behavior? > > sage: var('f x') > (f, x) > sage: f(x+3) > x+3 > > I would prefer a NotImplementedError... This has come up many times, and it's

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2009, at 2:28 PM, YannLC wrote: > >> Forgive my stubborness, but you answered only half of my question :) >> do you think the following  is a sane behavior? >> >> sage: var('f x') >> (f, x) >> sage: f(x+3) >> x+3 >> >> I would

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

Thanks for the explanation. I definitely don't like this shortcut: sage: var('foo bar') (foo, bar) sage: E = foo+bar sage: E(5) foo + 5 why not "bar +5" ? but I'll learn to live with it :) Yann On Feb 26, 11:42 pm, Carl Witty wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Robert Bradshaw

[sage-devel] Re: minimum rank worksheet

mabshoff wrote: > > > I glanced at the code and it seems doctested and documented, so what > is the holdup for submission for inclusion? I don't have written permission from one of the authors (but I do have verbal permission). Actually, I admit it, it's just lack of time on my part, since I

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:52 PM, YannLC wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. > I definitely don't like this shortcut: > > sage: var('foo bar') > (foo, bar) > sage: E = foo+bar > sage: E(5) > foo + 5 > > why not "bar +5" ? > > but I'll learn to live with it :) It goes by alphabetical order by d

[sage-devel] Re: minimum rank worksheet

On Feb 26, 2:52 pm, Jason Grout wrote: > mabshoff wrote: Hi Jason, > > I glanced at the code and it seems doctested and documented, so what > > is the holdup for submission for inclusion? > > I don't have written permission from one of the authors (but I do have > verbal permission).  Actuall

[sage-devel] Re: I cannot compile 3.3 in gentoo

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, mabshoff wrote: > On Feb 25, 3:05 am, water wrote: > > if I need to wait sage 3.4 ? > > Hi, > > Sage 3.4 won't fix the issue since it needs to be out by friday at the > latest and I will need to work on other things until then. > > I have thought about this some more and it s

[sage-devel] Re: I cannot compile 3.3 in gentoo

On Feb 26, 2:57 pm, François Bissey wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, mabshoff wrote: > Hi Michael, Hi Francois > I haven't time to look into that before the release date of sage-3.4, > but at least with 3.4 he may have binaries. Ok, AFAIL we (== William & me) do not plan to build Gentoo bina

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Feb 26, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Mike Hansen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:52 PM, YannLC > wrote: >> >> Thanks for the explanation. >> I definitely don't like this shortcut: >> >> sage: var('foo bar') >> (foo, bar) >> sage: E = foo+bar >> sage: E(5) >> foo + 5 >> >> why not "bar +5" ? >> >> b

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Cardinality of a set...

Hi Tim, > The suggestion is that Sage consider an Axiom Category-like organization > that normalizes the names through inheritance. Of course, this requires > a huge re-think of the organization of Sage. It would also require "cover" > functions for external packages to map the names to t

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

>> I don't particularly like s.card(), because the abbreviation is too >> opaque -- > > Ah, is it? Hmm, well, maybe. Short poll: who finds card opaque? > I think it's pretty opaque. If I was looking for something like size already, I might think card is short for cardinality ... but if I was just

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

On Feb 26, 3:39 pm, Craig Citro wrote: > >> I don't particularly like s.card(), because the abbreviation is too > >> opaque -- > > > Ah, is it? Hmm, well, maybe. Short poll: who finds card opaque? > > I think it's pretty opaque. If I was looking for something like size > already, I might think

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

The discussion of "lisp 1" vs "lisp 2" designs periodically occurs in the comp.lang.lisp newsgroup, and may be the subject of a FAQ. The Scheme dialect of lisp is a lisp 1. Common Lisp is a lisp 2. The question revolves around the issue of whether there is are separate namespaces for functions an

[sage-devel] Slowdown in is_isomorphic?

There appears to have been a slow down in the is_isomorphic method of the Graph class. The code segment below (just the part timed with %time) runs in 0.7 seconds in Sage 3.1.1 and 2.2 seconds in Sage 3.2.3 and Sage 3.3. Both times are on my MacBook Pro at 2.1 GHz. The code simply downloads som

[sage-devel] Re: reusing solutions in functions

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Maurizio wrote: > Is it a problem interfacing to any symbolic package different from the > ordinary maxima one? I don't exactly recall if I took advantage of > others. OK, I spent some time looking at this, and this may indeed be the problem. I have a workaround

[sage-devel] Re: Slowdown in is_isomorphic?

Mark, Between Sage 3.1.1 and 3.2.3, the background implementation of graph isomorphism was completely switched over. The old implementation simply computed canonical labels, but it always constructed a C graph first. Now, it actually uses an algorithm specifically designed to test for isomorphism

[sage-devel] Re: Slowdown in is_isomorphic?

Robert Miller wrote: > Mark, > > Between Sage 3.1.1 and 3.2.3, the background implementation of graph > isomorphism was completely switched over. The old implementation > simply computed canonical labels, but it always constructed a C graph > first. Now, it actually uses an algorithm specifically

[sage-devel] Re: Slowdown in is_isomorphic?

> Is there a reason that you don't convert to C graphs by default anymore? >   I can see this preventing at least some people from getting fast > answers and having a bad opinion of Sage :(. If there were evidence that things were *always* faster when converting to C graphs automatically, I would

[sage-devel] Re: Slowdown in is_isomorphic?

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Robert Miller wrote: > >> Is there a reason that you don't convert to C graphs by default anymore? >>   I can see this preventing at least some people from getting fast >> answers and having a bad opinion of Sage :(. > > If there were evidence that things were *al

[sage-devel] Re: Slowdown in is_isomorphic?

On Feb 26, 9:35 pm, Robert Miller wrote: > Between Sage 3.1.1 and 3.2.3, the background implementation > of graph isomorphism was completely switched over. ... > if the input graphs are based on NetworkX graphs, it will > go much more slowly than it used to. For maximum speed in > is_isomorphic,

[sage-devel] Re: Double transpose on right_kernel()

Hi David, Thanks for your comments. I'm very interested in making Sage more approachable for students, so I'm all for anything that improves that, without hampering research applications. In my linear algebra textbook, I've been dogmatic about every vector being a column vector, even going so f

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

> Consider this: > sage: E = (x+3)*sin(x) > sage: E(5) > 8*sin(5) > sage: E.subs(x=5) > 8*sin(5) > > So E(5) is treated as a shorthand for E.subs(x=5). > > Now if we consider: > sage: var('f x') > (f, x) > sage: f(x+3) > x + 3 > sage: f.subs(f=x+3) > x + 3 > > it's the exact same thing. > > This c

[sage-devel] Re: Slowdown in is_isomorphic?

mark mcclure wrote: > On Feb 26, 9:35 pm, Robert Miller wrote: >> Between Sage 3.1.1 and 3.2.3, the background implementation >> of graph isomorphism was completely switched over. ... >> if the input graphs are based on NetworkX graphs, it will >> go much more slowly than it used to. For maximum

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM, kcrisman wrote: > >> Consider this: >> sage: E = (x+3)*sin(x) >> sage: E(5) >> 8*sin(5) >> sage: E.subs(x=5) >> 8*sin(5) >> >> So E(5) is treated as a shorthand for E.subs(x=5). >> >> Now if we consider: >> sage: var('f x') >> (f, x) >> sage: f(x+3) >> x + 3 >> sa

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Carl Witty wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM, kcrisman wrote: >> >>> Consider this: >>> sage: E = (x+3)*sin(x) >>> sage: E(5) >>> 8*sin(5) >>> sage: E.subs(x=5) >>> 8*sin(5) >>> >>> So E(5) is treated as a shorthand for E.subs(x=5). >>> >>> Now if we con

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

Carl Witty wrote: >> Anyway, as several have commented, this discussion has taken place >> many times before, but having to use >> sage: f(x)=x^2 >> instead of >> sage: f=x^2 >> many times for single-variable symbolic expressions could be very >> annoying in the long run, IMHO. Let's not be stul

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

+1 On Feb 26, 9:05 pm, Jason Grout wrote: > Carl Witty wrote: > >> Anyway, as several have commented, this discussion has taken place > >> many times before, but having to use > >> sage: f(x)=x^2 > >> instead of > >> sage: f=x^2 > >> many times for single-variable symbolic expressions could be v

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM, William Stein wrote: > Just out of curiosity, do you think we should also get rid of this? > > sage: R. = ZZ[] > sage: x(x+1) > x + 1 Ouch, that's a tougher question, since I actually use that construct :) But since I don't want to be a total hypocrite, I'm goin

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM, William Stein wrote: >> Just out of curiosity, do you think we should also get rid of this? >> >> sage: R. = ZZ[] >> sage: x(x+1) >> x + 1 > > Ouch, that's a tougher question, since I actually use that constr

[sage-devel] Sage in the blogosphere

Hi folks, Since I don't see the following blog post http://mvngu.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/the-summer-that-was/ at Planet Sage, I'm posting the link here just in case you want to catch up on Sage-related news from down under in Australia. -- Regards Minh Van Nguyen --~--~-~--~~---

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Feb 26, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM, William Stein > wrote: >> Just out of curiosity, do you think we should also get rid of this? >> >> sage: R. = ZZ[] >> sage: x(x+1) >> x + 1 > > Ouch, that's a tougher question, since I actually use that > co

[sage-devel] talk on Sage at Emory University tomorrow

Hi, I'm giving a talk on Sage at Emory University tomorrow: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/tmp/talk.pdf The first half is similar to the talk I gave recently at MSR. The second half -- on the BSD conjecture -- is new. I'll likely skip some slides from the first half in order t

[sage-devel] Re: symbolic functions

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM, William Stein wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote: >> So, should I prepare patches that deprecate implicit calling of >> symbolics and of polynomials?  (Would they be likely to be accepted?) > > Definitely for symbolics.  I'm less clear a

[sage-devel] Re: Double transpose on right_kernel()

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Rob Beezer wrote: > > Hi David, > > Thanks for your comments.  I'm very interested in making Sage more > approachable for students, so I'm all for anything that improves that, > without hampering research applications. > > In my linear algebra textbook, I've been

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Cardinality of a set...

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM, mabshoff wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 3:39 pm, Craig Citro wrote: >> >> I don't particularly like s.card(), because the abbreviation is too >> >> opaque -- >> >> > Ah, is it? Hmm, well, maybe. Short poll: who finds card opaque? >> >> I think it's pretty opaque. If I

[sage-devel] Re: I cannot compile 3.3 in gentoo

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:09 PM, mabshoff wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 2:57 pm, François Bissey wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, mabshoff wrote: > > > >> Hi Michael, > > Hi Francois > >> I haven't time to look into that before the release date of sage-3.4, >> but at least with 3.4 he may have binari

[sage-devel] Re: talk on Sage at Emory University tomorrow

Hi William, A few comments: page 36, first line: "An nonsingular" should be "A nonsingular" page 36, Faltings' theorem: "finitely rational points" should be "finitely many rational points" page 36, BSD: again, "finitely" should be "finitely many" page 41: seeing P, 2*P, and 3*P does not really c

[sage-devel] Re: talk on Sage at Emory University tomorrow

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:04 PM, William Stein wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm giving a talk on Sage at Emory University tomorrow: > >   http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/tmp/talk.pdf > > The first half is similar to the talk I gave recently at MSR.  The > second half -- on the BSD conjecture -

[sage-devel] Re: talk on Sage at Emory University tomorrow

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Carl Witty wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:04 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm giving a talk on Sage at Emory University tomorrow: >> >>   http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/tmp/talk.pdf >> >> The first half is similar to the talk I gav

[sage-devel] Re: talk on Sage at Emory University tomorrow

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote: > Hi William, > > A few comments: > > page 36, first line: "An nonsingular" should be "A nonsingular" > page 36, Faltings' theorem: "finitely rational points" should be "finitely > many rational points" > page 36, BSD: again, "finitely" should b

  1   2   >