William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Pat LeSmithe wrote:
>> Are there any issues/risks with adding
>>extended_valid_elements: "style",
>> to the tinyMCE.init object in notebook.py (around line 1810)?
>
> I have no idea. Did you try it? Did it mess anything up?
I sh
Robert Dodier wrote:
>
>> * We raise an error whenever a function object is specified without
>> variables.
>
> There's no need to prohibit expressions for which there is not
> yet an interpretation; let the user decide whether something
> makes sense.
At the same time, raising an e
2009/3/30 Martin Albrecht :
>
>> I was **amazed** at how many functions there are in Magma for
>> univariate polynomials that aren't in Sage... and would be easy to
>> add. E.g., magma has
>>
>> "Interpolation(I, V) : [ RngElt ], [ RngElt ] -> RngUPolElt
>> This function finds a univariate p
On 2009-Mar-29 11:55:48 -0700, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>I think I will just add more targets to the makefile in the top
>directory, e.g. something like
>
>make # use 1 processor
>make parallel # use all processors
>JOBS=3 make # use 3 processors
FWIW, FreeBSD has just implemented something simila
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> This is the last in the series of symbolics related emails today. :)
>
> I'm looking for comments to trac #5607, which has this summary:
>
>
> In a comment to #5413 Jason pointed out the following confusing
> behavior:
>
> sa
> I was **amazed** at how many functions there are in Magma for
> univariate polynomials that aren't in Sage... and would be easy to
> add. E.g., magma has
>
> "Interpolation(I, V) : [ RngElt ], [ RngElt ] -> RngUPolElt
> This function finds a univariate polynomial that evaluates to the
> va
William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 4:14 PM, John H Palmieri
> wrote:
>> In the notebook, would it be at all feasible to have the math in
>> docstrings (that is, text in backquotes like `n \times n`) run through
>> jsmath?
>
> Yes, that's definitely possible. Also, something like py
David Joyner wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> This is the last in the series of symbolics related emails today. :)
>>
>> I'm looking for comments to trac #5607, which has this summary:
>>
>>
>> In a comment to #5413 Jason pointed out the following
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> David Joyner wrote:
>>
>> No objection. However, I think
>>
>> sage: t = var("t")
>> sage: g = function("g",t)
>> sage: g = sin + t
>> sage: g(3)
>> sin(3) + 3
>
>
> Note that here, you are redefining g with the functon sin+t (i.e., you
> a
2009/3/28 mabshoff :
>
> Hello folks,
>
> Sources as well as a sage.math only binary can be found in
>
>http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.4.1/
I have been unable to connect here all day.
John
>
> Please build, test and report any issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michae
Ok, here is a first shot that has 100% coverage (except dumps):
http://github.com/bo198214/hyperops/raw/09e1da3372d7b431cdf557ffe164df9f91c08e68/formal_powerseries.py
I finally decided to name it FPSRing, for Formal Power Series Ring. It
resides in sage.rings.formal_powerseries
I hope Nicolas M.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:25 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> 2009/3/28 mabshoff :
>>
>> Hello folks,
>
>
>>
>> Sources as well as a sage.math only binary can be found in
>>
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.4.1/
>
> I have been unable to connect here all day.
I don
David Joyner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> David Joyner wrote:
>
>>> No objection. However, I think
>>>
>>> sage: t = var("t")
>>> sage: g = function("g",t)
>>> sage: g = sin + t
>>> sage: g(3)
>>> sin(3) + 3
>>
>> Note that here, you are redefining g with the
One question: is there any plan to replace expand(), factor() and
other functions like these? I don't see them mentioned in the todo,
and I always find their usage so much time consuming...
Thanks
Maurizio
On Mar 29, 1:47 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I put up a preliminary todo list for
thanks!
John
2009/3/30 William Stein :
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:25 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> 2009/3/28 mabshoff :
>>>
>>> Hello folks,
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Sources as well as a sage.math only binary can be found in
>>>
>>>http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.4.1/
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:25 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> 2009/3/28 mabshoff :
>>
>> Hello folks,
>
>
>>
>> Sources as well as a sage.math only binary can be found in
>>
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.4.1/
>
> I have been unable to connect here all day.
>
> Jo
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> One question: is there any plan to replace expand(), factor() and
> other functions like these?
Replace them with what? Do you mean, implement them?
>I don't see them mentioned in the todo,
> and I always find their usage so much time consumi
Michael,
I'm not entirely sure of the protocol for giving credit, but M.Albrecht
also helped with #5519 and #5535, and C.Witty looked over my patch for
#5535.
Thanks!
- Ryan
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> this release is overdue, but here we go. We have loads of little
> fixes, but also
I'm sorry... I wanted to say: is there any plan to make factor()
working with new symbolic as well? I could see one minute ago that
expand is already there (although I'm not aware whether is this
performed through maxima or not, but I don't think so, since it is a
built-in method for a pynac objec
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> I'm sorry... I wanted to say: is there any plan to make factor()
> working with new symbolic as well? I could see one minute ago that
> expand is already there (although I'm not aware whether is this
> performed through maxima or not, but I don
Jason Grout wrote:
> At the same time, raising an error let's us assign a meaning at a later
> time without worries of backwards compatibility issues.
I'm not convinced. Changing the behavior would require modifying
the symbolic evaluation code, right? It's not something an
ordinary user could c
Hi,
I have been trying to install Sage 3.4 on Playstation 3 (OS: Ubuntu
8.10 Linux with 2.6.25-2-powerpc64-smp), but I have faced with an
error occurred while installing gmp-mpir-0.9.
The error message I got:
g++ -shared -nostdlib /usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-linux-gnu/
Hi,
I'm forwarding this mpir-devel. I know the lead developer of MPIR
(Bill Hart) has a Playstation with Linux, so maybe he's tried?
William
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:16 AM, hmu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been trying to install Sage 3.4 on Playstation 3 (OS: Ubuntu
> 8.10 Linux wi
I would really like to not have to annoy you with this stuff, but I
really think I'm missing something important (and useful!!)
The first thing I have to say is: how do I check which is the type of
the coefficients (whether they are rationals or something else)? Even
when I do multivariate polyno
> >> I really think it would be silly to require
> >> sage: integrate(x^3,x)
>
> > I don't find this so silly, especially in an educational setting. I
> > am forever telling my students that the "dx" part of an integral
> > (definite or indefinite) is not optional. In a definite integral it
> >
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> I would really like to not have to annoy you with this stuff, but I
> really think I'm missing something important (and useful!!)
>
> The first thing I have to say is: how do I check which is the type of
> the coefficients (whether they are rat
Hi there,
I've been informed of the discussion,
so my 2 cents:
OpenOpt can work without CVXOPT installed (you can easily ensure it
via running /examples/nlp_1.py, that uses ralg). The mentioned files
(http://trac.openopt.org/openopt/browser/OOPy/openopt/solvers/CVXOPT/
*.py) are imported IF and ON
> > +1. And in fact it probably should define y as a variable even if you
> > just do differentiate(y^3).
>
> For the record, that will never happen by default in Sage. That goes
> along with choosing Python as the user language of Sage. Some
> reasons:
>
> 1. Except for ^-->** and int/float wr
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:43 AM, dmitrey wrote:
>
> Hi there,
> I've been informed of the discussion,
> so my 2 cents:
> OpenOpt can work without CVXOPT installed (you can easily ensure it
> via running /examples/nlp_1.py, that uses ralg). The mentioned files
> (http://trac.openopt.org/openopt/br
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:43 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> > +1. And in fact it probably should define y as a variable even if you
>> > just do differentiate(y^3).
>>
>> For the record, that will never happen by default in Sage. That goes
>> along with choosing Python as the user language of Sage.
> It sounds like you're talking about the user interface rather than the
> language itself...
Hmm, I guess for someone like me they are quite inter-related, since I
have little programming experience. That seems reasonable. But of
course language is part of the interface, since one has to use i
On Mar 30, 5:36 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> > I would really like to not have to annoy you with this stuff, but I
> > really think I'm missing something important (and useful!!)
>
> > The first thing I have to say is: how do I check which is
Maurizio wrote:
> There has been some discussions about it at:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/tree/browse_frm/thread/304a39b13cf27990/e7437b268ad918c9?rnum=1&q=notebook+folders&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsage-devel%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F304a39b13cf27990%2Fe22461daf01e3a1c%3Flnk%3Dgst%26q%3
Jason Grout wrote:
> David Joyner wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Jason Grout
>> wrote:
>>> David Joyner wrote:
No objection. However, I think
sage: t = var("t")
sage: g = function("g",t)
sage: g = sin + t
sage: g(3)
sin(3) + 3
>>> Note that here, you
Hi,
If you're applying for postdocs next year, one option would be to
apply for the program described below and come to UW to work on
SAGE-related work.
William
-- Forwarded message --
From: Daniel Pollack (GPC)
Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Subject: [MathFaculty] MSRI P
Hi,
Consider matrices containing univariate polynomials over GF(2): is it
normal that calculating the smith normal form for such a matrix is
extremely slow?
this takes a while:
P. = GF(2)['x']
d,u,v = random_matrix(P,11,11).smith_form()
this doesn't seem to end:
P. = GF(2)['x']
d,u,v = random
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Christophe Oosterlynck
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Consider matrices containing univariate polynomials over GF(2): is it
> normal that calculating the smith normal form for such a matrix is
> extremely slow?
>
> this takes a while:
>
> P. = GF(2)['x']
> d,u,v = random_mat
On Mar 30, 6:46 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:43 AM, dmitrey wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> > I've been informed of the discussion,
> > so my 2 cents:
> > OpenOpt can work without CVXOPT installed (you can easily ensure it
> > via running /examples/nlp_1.py, that uses ralg). T
On Mar 29, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Burcin Erocal
> wrote:
>>* We raise an error whenever a function object is specified
>> without
>> variables.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> +1 for raising an error.
+1 for the error here as well.
- Robert
-
I forgot to mention that I got it to work by applying this patch to my
sage 3.4 install: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5353
But it should be in sage 3.4.1.alpha0 according to the bug report
Christophe
On Mar 30, 9:31 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Chris
With the "report a problem" public bugtracker this was reported:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ver?key=pCwvGVwSMxTzT6E2xNdo5fA&t=1238445447456000&pt=1238445427456000&diffWidget=true&s=AJVazbVFT97FZOYYfmwHgEVH7LCMCiaF-Q
--
'Sage Version 3.4, Release Date: 2009-03-11'
multiple proble
On Mar 30, 8:24 pm, Christophe Oosterlynck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Consider matrices containing univariate polynomials over GF(2): is it
> normal that calculating the smith normal form for such a matrix is
> extremely slow?
I wrote the smith_form code, and it's completely generic, applying to
an arbitr
Harald Schilly wrote:
> With the "report a problem" public bugtracker this was reported:
>
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ver?key=pCwvGVwSMxTzT6E2xNdo5fA&t=1238445447456000&pt=1238445427456000&diffWidget=true&s=AJVazbVFT97FZOYYfmwHgEVH7LCMCiaF-Q
>
> --
> 'Sage Version 3.4, Release
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
> I was thinking of custom defined latex representations of different
> variables or functions, similar to the example I showed in my first
> email in this thread. Basically, I would like to be able to give
> working names to variables
On Mar 30, 11:09 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> Harald Schilly wrote:
> > With the "report a problem" public bugtracker this was reported:
>
> >http://spreadsheets.google.com/ver?key=pCwvGVwSMxTzT6E2xNdo5fA&t=1238...
>
> > --
> > 'Sage Version 3.4, Release Date: 2009-03-11'
>
> > multiple p
On Mar 30, 2:47 pm, Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:09 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>
>
> > Harald Schilly wrote:
> > > With the "report a problem" public bugtracker this was reported:
>
> > >http://spreadsheets.google.com/ver?key=pCwvGVwSMxTzT6E2xNdo5fA&t=1238...
>
> > > --
> > >
Some time ago, I was annoying you guys for issues with transforms and
stuff like that.
On 20 Mar, 01:35, Maurizio wrote:
>
> So, up to now, my wishlist is:
> - better Laplace, Fourier, Zeta, any othertransformmanagement
> (especially in symbolic)
> - unit of measurement integration
> - extensibl
Hi, all,
On Mar 28, 2009, at 11:31 , mabshoff wrote:
> this release is overdue, but here we go. We have loads of little
> fixes, but also
> Sources as well as a sage.math only binary can be found in
>
>http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.4.1/
I upgraded from 3.4.
Hi,
I was looking a bit at what actually has to be done to get a useful
notebook.spkg, that can be installed without installing
sage-3.4.1.alpha0.spkg and most of it's dependencies. E.g. that is
useful for the windows port as well, as far as I understand.
It seems to me that the sage notebook is
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was looking a bit at what actually has to be done to get a useful
> notebook.spkg, that can be installed without installing
> sage-3.4.1.alpha0.spkg and most of it's dependencies. E.g. that is
> useful for the windows port as wel
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>
> Hi, all,
>
> On Mar 28, 2009, at 11:31 , mabshoff wrote:
>
>> this release is overdue, but here we go. We have loads of little
>> fixes, but also
>
>> Sources as well as a sage.math only binary can be found in
>>
>> http://sage.math.
On Mar 30, 2009, at 19:34 , William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Justin C. Walker
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2009, at 11:31 , mabshoff wrote:
>>
>>> this release is overdue, but here we go. We have loads of little
>>> fixes, but also
>>
>>> Sources as well a
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was looking a bit at what actually has to be done to get a useful
>> notebook.spkg, that can be installed without installing
>> sage-3.4.1.alpha0.spkg and most of it'
Dear Henryk, dear Mike,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 06:36:17AM -0700, Henryk Trappmann wrote:
>
> Ok, here is a first shot that has 100% coverage (except dumps):
> http://github.com/bo198214/hyperops/raw/09e1da3372d7b431cdf557ffe164df9f91c08e68/formal_powerseries.py
>
> I finally decided to
Nice! What are the dependencies fir this?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was looking a bit at what actually has to be done to get
On Mar 30, 7:29 am, Ryan Hinton wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I'm not entirely sure of the protocol for giving credit, but M.Albrecht
> also helped with #5519 and #5535, and C.Witty looked over my patch for
> #5535.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Ryan
Ok, when I understand you correctly the credits for those two p
On Mar 29, 2:17 am, davidloeffler wrote:
Hi David,
> I think I'm being credited with more than my fair share of reviewing
> here:
>
> > #2551: Francis Clarke: __getitem__ for relative number field elements
> > is ... surprising [Reviewed by John Cremona, David Loeffler]
> > #5214: Francis Cla
On Mar 30, 7:51 am, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm forwarding this mpir-devel. I know the lead developer of MPIR
> (Bill Hart) has a Playstation with Linux, so maybe he's tried?
>
> William
This is very likely a problem of 32 vs. 64 bit default build for the
compiler. Without the log t
On Mar 30, 2:05 pm, davidloeffler wrote:
> On Mar 30, 8:24 pm, Christophe Oosterlynck wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Consider matrices containing univariate polynomials over GF(2): is it
> > normal that calculating the smith normal form for such a matrix is
> > extremely slow?
>
> I wrote the smith_fo
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2009, at 19:34 , William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Justin C. Walker
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, all,
>>>
>>> On Mar 28, 2009, at 11:31 , mabshoff wrote:
>>>
this release is overdue, but here we g
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was looking a bit at what actually has to be done to get a useful
>>> notebook.spkg, that can be inst
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
Hi,
I was looking a bit at what actuall
Hi Maurizio,
I cced sage devel too.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 31 Mar, 01:39, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>>
>> > I know some of you guys are related to SAGE development.
>>
>> > I think it was polite behavi
63 matches
Mail list logo
