Hello folks,
after more delay than hoped for here goes the final 3.4. Sources are
available from
http://www.sagemath.org/src/
Upgrading Sage via the official channel also works already. There is
also a sage.math only binary in
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.
mabshoff wrote:
> #5220: Jason Grout: Weird or non-appearance of default in input_box in
> interact [Reviewed by William Stein]
William should get credit for this as well. I think it'd be best to
list us both as authors and as reviewers.
Thanks,
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~
On Mar 12, 12:35 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
> > #5220: Jason Grout: Weird or non-appearance of default in input_box in
> > interact [Reviewed by William Stein]
>
> William should get credit for this as well. I think it'd be best to
> list us both as authors and as reviewers.
Coo
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> Given the resolution of
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3936
>
> it may be too hard to solve this one:
>
> A=GF(7)['h','k']
> B=RealField()['x','y']
> C=Integers()
> A B A
> Perhaps someone with more understanding of sage internal
Given the resolution of
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3936
it may be too hard to solve this one:
A=GF(7)['h','k']
B=RealField()['x','y']
C=Integers()
Ahttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Hi Nicolas,
I have no time at the moment to look at this patch. I used it to do
some
computations which were completely undoable with the standard
implementation of FractionField, and which became extremely fast
using this implementation.
So the lukewarm (to say the least) reaction by some very
Here's a quick poll.
In Python, if I write "-1 % 5", I get 4. This is how we do it in Sage
as well (and I think it's the right way--that's not what I'm trying
to ask). However, in C if I write "-1 % 5" I get -1. The question is,
what should I get in Cython if I write (a % b) where a and b a
On 03/12/2009 04:34 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Wow, this thread has generated a lot of discussion! :)
I am sorry for having started this. :-)
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
>> Some more oil for the fire...
>>
>> sage: K=NumberField(x^2+1, 'a'); K
>> Number Field in a w
>> Hmm. I have to think about it. For the moment, the only think I am
>> sure of: coercions should *always* be safe.
> Does this mean you want GF(5)(3)*2 and RR(pi)*2 to fail? These
> currently work due to coercions that would be unsafe according to my
> definition.
For R(3)*2 it seems reasonab
I have an ignorant question: what are the canonical reps of
ZZZ/nZZZ in C? (-n/2,n/2]?
Is the issue to decide between the interval [0,n-1] as reps of ZZ/nZZ (Python)
vs (-n/2,n/2] (C)?
The only C book I have in my office doesn't have this and my
browser seems to have some problems ("ASSERT: *** S
Hi there,
it seems
http://hg.sagemath.org/sage-main/
is out of date.
Cheers,
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: martinral
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> OK, my last post on this tread for a while, I promise :).
>
I hope no one is asking you to not post on this subject (priorities
and time constraints notwithstanding)... :-(
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>
>> On Wed, M
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>>> Do I do something wrong or is autocoercion doing something strange
>>> here?
>>> In fact, I would have expected an error telling me that I cannot
>>> compare
>>> an element of K with any other thing.
>
>> This is nothing to do with coercio
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>> +10. Otherwise every element has huge if-else lists in every
>> __add__, __sub__, __mul__, etc. corresponding to the fixed list
>> various possibilities that the programer original programmer thought
>> of at the time, and then those who've add
Robert,
Since I hit the problem I'm motivated to chime in. I also followed the
email trail on the cython list.
Quick summary:
[X] Let the programmer decide, with
[X'] Get 4 as the default
There are obviously some cases where speed is paramount and others where
Python compatibility is paramo
Hi all,
I had a conversation with John Palmieri and Simon King on sage-support
about cohomology and Steenrod operations:
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/928840109cdadc6b/fd95901cea21288b?lnk=gst&q=pierre+steenrod#fd95901cea21288b
I have completed my plan of conv
2009-03-12
Thread
fat chat", member, , no email, allowed, 2006, 11, 1, 18, 24, 35
Build is not working, here are some details:
uname -a
Darwin FatMac.local 8.11.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.11.0: Wed Oct 10
18:26:00 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.24.17~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh
powerpc
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-apple-darwin8
Configured with: /var/tmp/gcc/gcc-5370
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:16 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>
> I have an ignorant question: what are the canonical reps of
> ZZZ/nZZZ in C? (-n/2,n/2]?
> Is the issue to decide between the interval [0,n-1] as reps of ZZ/nZZ (Python)
> vs (-n/2,n/2] (C)?
In C, ZZ/nZZ does not have canonical representat
> [ ] Get 4, because it should behave just like in Python, even though
> it will require extra logic and be a bit slower
>
> [X] Get -1, because they're C ints, and besides we wouldn't be using
> Cython if we didn't care about performance
>
> [ ] Let the programmer decide (e.g. using http://wiki.c
I am getting 1 error on sage -testall after an upgrade from 3.3 to
3.4 on Mac OS 10.5.6.
sage -t "devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py"
**
File "/Users/ayeq/sage/devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curve
Hi,
First, I think (at least last time I tried) there is a lot of room to
speed
up arithmetic in function fields, which would be my first priority.
Second, as a mathematical construction, I think that the
localizations
A_S where A is a ring (e.g. UFD or PID) and S = {p_1,...,p_n} is a
set
of pri
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:03 AM, David Kohel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> First, I think (at least last time I tried) there is a lot of room to
> speed
> up arithmetic in function fields, which would be my first priority.
>
> Second, as a mathematical construction, I think that the
> localizations
> A_S w
Dear Robert,
> The issue here is that comparison is useful outside of the purely
> mathematical context--for example if one wants to sort a list (for
> printing or searching) or use elements in sets or as keys in
> dictionaries or simply throw an error on an illegal value like 0.
Su
>> [X] Get -1, because they're C ints, and besides we wouldn't be using
>> Cython if we didn't care about performance
I support this because I would like Cython to remain primarily a way
to interface to C code rather than become the "default language of
sage".
Nick
--~--~-~--~~-
On Mar 12, 9:54 am, "David M. Monarres" wrote:
Hi David,
> I am getting 1 error on sage -testall after an upgrade from 3.3 to
> 3.4 on Mac OS 10.5.6.
>
> sage -t "devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py"
> *
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
>
> Dear Robert,
>
>> The issue here is that comparison is useful outside of the purely
>> mathematical context--for example if one wants to sort a list (for
>> printing or searching) or use elements in sets or as keys in
>> dictionarie
fat chat, member, , no email, allowed, 2006, 11, 1, 18, 24, 35 wrote:
Hi,
> Build is not working, here are some details:
What are you trying to do? Build from sources? Then something went
very wrong since Cython not working is a serious failure earlier and
you should have never gotten to t
> I do not understand this claim. As Ralf pointed out, there are good
> (i.e. "mathematical") reasons why it makes sense to multiply elements
> of GF(5) directly by integers. This has nothing to do with coercions
> or any other kind of type conversion per se. It makes sense to have
> this property
On Mar 12, 3:00 am, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> Hi there,
Hi Martin,
> it seems
>
> http://hg.sagemath.org/sage-main/
>
> is out of date.
Yeah, William and I started looking into fixing this last night, but
we didn't get it done before having to take off. I am not sure we will
get to it toda
On Mar 12, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> OK, my last post on this tread for a while, I promise :).
>
> I hope no one is asking you to not post on this subject (priorities
> and time constraints notwithstanding)... :-(
No...it
On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>>> Here's some examples to hopefully clarify:
>>
>>
>>> RealField(20) -> RealField(50)
>>> RealField(20) -> RealIntervalField(20)
>>
>> I would call these dangerous,
I should clarify, it
> I guess "safe" is a matter of personal taste. I find
>
> sage: GF(5)(0) == 0
> True
> sage: GF(5)(1) == 1
> True
> sage: GF(5)(-1) == -1
> True
>
> to be "safe," but it seems some people are really bothered by this
> idea and would rather have to write "a == a.parent().coerce(1)"
I'd rath
On 12 Mar, 18:20, mabshoff wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:54 am, "David M. Monarres" wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>
>
> > I am getting 1 error on sage -testall after an upgrade from 3.3 to
> > 3.4 on Mac OS 10.5.6.
>
> > sage -t "devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py"
> >
On Mar 12, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Florent Hivert
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Robert,
>>
>>> The issue here is that comparison is useful outside of the purely
>>> mathematical context--for example if one wants to sort a list (for
>>> printing or sear
On Mar 12, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
>> I guess "safe" is a matter of personal taste. I find
>>
>> sage: GF(5)(0) == 0
>> True
>> sage: GF(5)(1) == 1
>> True
>> sage: GF(5)(-1) == -1
>> True
>>
>> to be "safe," but it seems some people are really bothered by this
>> idea and would
On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
>
>> How many places is this used? In my (fairly fresh) Sage session,
>> there are only 9 actions in the action cache (on matrices, number
>> fields, and polynomials). I'd be willing to write the _get_action_
>> methods for these cases, if it w
It really bothers me that "less than" comparisons are allowed without
transitivity. I understand the benefits of being able to "sort"
output, and transitivity is essential for that.
[a different school promotes to randomize the order of output whenever
there is no inherent order to the answer. It
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>> My suggestion in that thread of using "cmp" for sysorder is possible,
>> but I doubt if it's a good idea... it makes it easy to make
>> implementation mistakes, because by default cmp()
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> So, to rephrase the question, does this mean that GF(5)(3) + 1 and RR
> (pi) + 1 should fail?
And note that if the answer to the former question is yes, you lose
this notational convenience:
sage: K. = GF(5)[]
sage: 2*x^2 + 3*x + 4
2*x^
I'm glad the coercion model is starting to get discussed,
implemented, and used by other people. Before it gets to popular, I
would like to propose an api change.
Currently, if A has an action on B (where B is not an A-module) one
implements either a._l_action_ or b._r_action_. This is beca
On Mar 12, 2:24 am, William Stein wrote:
> > L=[]
> > path="/usr/local/sage/default/tmp/pickle_jar-3.4"
> > for n in os.listdir(path):
> > if n.endswith(".sobj"):
> >L.append(load(path+"/"+n))
> > L.sort()
>
> > This fails on a:
> > AttributeError: 'TranspositionCryptosystem' object has no
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> ...
> But what I'm saying is that
>
> sage: GF(5)(3) == 3
> True
>
> Seems just as natural.
>
The reason that this seems natural is that it is a rather special case
involving a simple "literal".
Does the following
sage: a = 11
sage: GF(
Craig Citro wrote:
> and be *as fast as humanly possible*. Plus, when we move things from
> Python down to Cython, we already have changes to make -- for
> instance, x**2 has to change, because C doesn't support
> exponentiation, so why would it be any different for %?
Cython doesn't automatic
> > The very purpose of the category framework it to declare in a
> > mathematical
> > way, this that have a matematical meaning. In the case of a right
> > action of A
> > on B, on declare that B is a A-RightModule. It is much more
> > informative by all
> > respect than testing if a random
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> I'm glad the coercion model is starting to get discussed,
> implemented, and used by other people. Before it gets to popular, I
> would like to propose an api change.
>
> Currently, if A has an action on B (where B is not an A-module) one
> implements either a._l_ac
On Mar 12, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
>>> The very purpose of the category framework it to declare in a
>>> mathematical
>>> way, this that have a matematical meaning. In the case of a right
>>> action of A
>>> on B, on declare that B is a A-RightModule. It is much more
>>> informati
I'm running 64-bit Ubuntu 8.10 on a Core 2 processor, and Sage 3.4 has
failed to build for me twice on the same error. It appears to occur on
the compilation of PolyBoRi and I get the following error:
polybori/src/BoolePolynomial.cc:915: instantiated from here
polybori/include/CTermGenerator.h:
On Mar 12, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> I'm glad the coercion model is starting to get discussed,
>> implemented, and used by other people. Before it gets to popular, I
>> would like to propose an api change.
>>
>> Currently, if A has an action on B (where B is
> And note that if the answer to the former question is yes, you lose
> this notational convenience:
>
> sage: K. = GF(5)[]
> sage: 2*x^2 + 3*x + 4
> 2*x^2 + 3*x + 4
>
> You would instead have to type 2*x^2 + 3*x + GF(5)(4).
There are languages that still allow that to work without coercion.
W
Dear Robert,
> >>> The very purpose of the category framework it to declare in a
> >>> mathematical
> >>> way, this that have a matematical meaning. In the case of a right
> >>> action of A
> >>> on B, on declare that B is a A-RightModule. It is much more
> >>> informative by all
> >>> res
On Mar 12, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> The very purpose of the category framework it to declare in a
> mathematical
> way, this that have a matematical meaning. In the case of a right
> action of A
> on B, on declare that B is a A-RightModu
On Mar 12, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Craig Citro wrote:
>> and be *as fast as humanly possible*. Plus, when we move things from
>> Python down to Cython, we already have changes to make -- for
>> instance, x**2 has to change, because C doesn't support
>> exponentiation, so why would
Hi,
As some of you know, I have a precious system wide install of sage. The latest
sage -upgrade
brought me to version 3.4:
$ ls /usr/local/sage/spkg/installed/sage-*
sage-1.5.1.2 sage-2.1 sage-2.2 sage-2.6 sage-2.8.3
sage-2.8.8.1 sage-3.1
sage-1.5.3sage-2.10 sage-2
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As some of you know, I have a precious system wide install of sage. The
> latest sage -upgrade
> brought me to version 3.4:
>
> $ ls /usr/local/sage/spkg/installed/sage-*
> sage-1.5.1.2 sage-2.1 sage-2.2 sage-2.6 sage
On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, "M. Yurko" wrote:
Hi,
> I'm running 64-bit Ubuntu 8.10 on a Core 2 processor, and Sage 3.4 has
> failed to build for me twice on the same error. It appears to occur on
> the compilation of PolyBoRi and I get the following error:
>
> polybori/src/BoolePolynomial.cc:915: i
William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
[...]
>> But somehow there are files that never get upgraded. For example sage,
>> makefile, etcetera.
>> So running make check fails. ./sage -testall gives a zillion of failures.
>>
>> Any help to save this install is wel
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
> [...]
>>> But somehow there are files that never get upgraded. For example sage,
>>> makefile, etcetera.
>>> So running make check fails. ./sage -testall gives a z
William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>> [...]
But somehow there are files that never get upgraded. For example sage,
makefile, etcetera.
So running make check fails
--
| Sage Version 3.4, Release Date: 2009-03-11 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.|
--
sage: M = matr
On Mar 12, 2009, at 00:29 , mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> after more delay than hoped for here goes the final 3.4. Sources are
> available from
>
> http://www.sagemath.org/src/
>
> Upgrading Sage via the official channel also works already. There is
> also a sage.math only binary in
>
>
Hi David,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:03:53AM -0700, David Kohel wrote:
> First, I think (at least last time I tried) there is a lot of room
> to speed up arithmetic in function fields, which would be my first
> priority.
> Second, as a mathematical construction, I think that the
> local
> I have no time at the moment to look at this patch. I used it to do
> some computations which were completely undoable with the standard
> implementation of FractionField, and which became extremely fast
> using this implementation.
> So the lukewarm (to say the least) reaction by some very mu
> Ideally, the coercion model just has the idea of an action, without
> having to specify where they can come from. In any case, it's clear
> there's some cleaning up to do, and I'll go in and do that (though
> not right now).
Yup. That's why in MuPAD we were doing this declaratively; somet
Dear Robert,
Hmmm. Quite an interesting discussion. Could anyone try to make some
sort of synthesis of the different opinions expressed in this thread?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:18:45PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> As mentioned, everything can be seen as a Z-module. This would mean
>
On Mar 12, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> Hmmm. Quite an interesting discussion. Could anyone try to make some
> sort of synthesis of the different opinions expressed in this thread?
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:18:45PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> As me
2009-03-12
Thread
fat chat", member, , no email, allowed, 2006, 11, 1, 18, 24, 35
On Mar 12, 11:24 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> What are you trying to do? Build from sources? Then something went
> very wrong sinceCythonnot working is a serious failure earlier and
> you should have never gotten to this point. Please compress
> install.log and post a link so I can take a look since th
I am pleased to announce the release of sage-mode-0.5.3, the all-
singing, all-dancing sage development Emacs environment. As always,
you can get it from http://wiki.sagemath.org/sage-mode.
This is a *SUPER BETA* release: I reworked the keymaps, the customize
interface, and the elisp loadin
Hi Nick,
First of all: yay!
Second: the installation instructions seem to have changed on the wiki page,
but not in what the package itself prints when it's done building. I
imagine the wiki version is the correct one?
Best,
Alex
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
> I a
68 matches
Mail list logo
