Hi folks,
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:49 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> as expected changes over 3.4.1.rc4 are minimal:
>
> Merged in Sage 3.4.1.final:
>
> #5284: Michael Abshoff: Set sage-flags.txt up to SSE2 only when
> building Sage in SSE2 only mode/remove SSSE3 and SSE4 flags (follo
There is no need to put in a long description within the patch: just
put in a short one and add detail on the trac ticket. And you can use
whatever editor you like. For me hg pops up emacs, presumably because
I have environment variable set to "emacs -nw"
John
2009/4/27 Rado :
>
> Alright, her
On Apr 27, 4:48 am, evan foss wrote:
> Ok thanks, I have been wondering about the performance of netbooks.
>
>
well, i'm surprised how good it is. you can give me some calculations
and i can benchmark it.
h
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send emai
This looks pretty nasty:
sage: Fx.=GF(2^(4*5))
sage: Ex=EllipticCurve(Fx,[0,0,1,1,1])
sage: Ex.defining_polynomial()
x^3 + y^2*z + 0*x*z^2 + 0*y*z^2 + 0*z^3
(note the coefficients of zero).
I found this while reviewing #5765 but the above is in a vanilla
3.4.2.alpha0, and it is wrong; though t
Weird. This does not happen on my laptop (32-bit arch linux -- you
didn't think I would put up a patch without doctesting did you? :)
But I am definitely getting this on sage.math. I'll try to see what I
can do about it.
Alex
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:20 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> This lo
2009/4/27 Alex Ghitza :
>
> Weird. This does not happen on my laptop (32-bit arch linux -- you
> didn't think I would put up a patch without doctesting did you? :)
Of course not!
>
> But I am definitely getting this on sage.math. I'll try to see what I
> can do about it.
thanks. As I said, m
A bit more info: on sage.math, it is working fine in sage-2.0, but
not in sage-2.10 (or anything later). I realise that quite a bit
happened between 2.0 and 2.10, but that's the only 2.*'s that I can
run (2.5 and 2.6 complain bitterly when started).
Weird.
--
Alex Ghitza -- Lecturer in Mathem
2009/4/27 Alex Ghitza :
>
> A bit more info: on sage.math, it is working fine in sage-2.0, but
> not in sage-2.10 (or anything later). I realise that quite a bit
> happened between 2.0 and 2.10, but that's the only 2.*'s that I can
> run (2.5 and 2.6 complain bitterly when started).
>
> Weird.
Hi Lucio,
Sorry for not replying to your previous email. I work at a financial company
(Bloomberg) and work has been crazy lately.
If you have some time to build a new iso with the new Sage please do it,
and post your version in the mailing list. We can upload the iso the sagemath.
If you ask Wi
OK, here's a much simpler example, which also indicates that it's a
problem with finite fields (again, aarrgh):
{{{
sage: Fx. = GF(2^15)
sage: R. = Fx[]
sage: R({(1,2):1})# this works fine
x*y^2
sage: Fx. = GF(2^16)
sage: R. = Fx[]
sage: R({(1,2):1})# this sucks!!!
0*x*y^2
}}}
In conclus
Alfredo,
awesome, I'll build it and provide the instructions and send William
an email soon and also post the news here.
Greetings,
Lucio.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Alfredo Portes wrote:
>
> Hi Lucio,
>
> Sorry for not replying to your previous email. I work at a financial
> company
>
2^16 is the smallest for which givaro is not used. In char.2, we switch to NTL.
Also, it's not a 32/64-bit issue really, since I was running a 32-bit machine.
John
2009/4/27 Alex Ghitza :
>
> OK, here's a much simpler example, which also indicates that it's a
> problem with finite fields (agai
On Monday 27 April 2009, John Cremona wrote:
> 2^16 is the smallest for which givaro is not used. In char.2, we switch to
> NTL.
Yes, it is likely in the conversion routine from NTL to Singular.
> Also, it's not a 32/64-bit issue really, since I was running a 32-bit
> machine.
I can confirm th
Hi,
Here is a link to an interesting thread on the OpenModelica message
board about Sage
-- Forwarded message --
From: pepe
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: OpenModelica
To: William Stein
Hello William,
I've had a question posted about licensing of OpenMo
On Apr 27, 6:45 am, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> A bit more info: on sage.math, it is working fine in sage-2.0, but
> not in sage-2.10 (or anything later). I realise that quite a bit
> happened between 2.0 and 2.10, but that's the only 2.*'s that I can
> run (2.5 and 2.6 complain bitterly when starte
mabshoff wrote:
> I just noticed that fortran-OSX64-20090120.spkg had disappeared from
> the experimental spkg repo. Since I had personally uploaded it and I
> had seen other instances where experimental/optional spkg disappeared
> I would like to ask various people with spkgs in the repo, i.e. Ja
On Apr 26, 2009, at 22:15 , jjoonathan wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 9:49 pm, "Justin C. Walker" wrote:
>> I think you are violating your NDA with Apple.
>>
> I think the only detail I revealed that actually belongs to apple is
> the version number of darwin 10 (and possibly a "version range" of
> gcc
The note about OpenModelica brought this to mind.
Maxima is licensed under GPL, but it too has additional restrictions.
You can see the original letter releasing the code to Bill Schelter
from the DOE, whose people perhaps did not understand GPL
entirely.
http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/wfs/maxim
On Apr 27, 1:14 pm, rjf wrote:
Hi,
> The note about OpenModelica brought this to mind.
>
> Maxima is licensed under GPL, but it too has additional restrictions.
> You can see the original letter releasing the code to Bill Schelter
> from the DOE, whose people perhaps did not understand GPL
>
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> The note about OpenModelica brought this to mind.
>
> Maxima is licensed under GPL, but it too has additional restrictions.
> You can see the original letter releasing the code to Bill Schelter
> from the DOE, whose people perhaps did not understand
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
> which seems to be transcribed from the GIF. Given that Debian pays
> close attention to the licenses of code can someone with access to a
> pure Debian check what repo Maxima is in? It would also be worthwhile
> to ping debian-legal about this should Maxima
> Well, IANAL. Looking at COPYING in Maxima's source distribution it
> says:
>
> [quote]
> Maxima is dedicated to the memory of William F. Schelter. On 6 October
> 1998 William F. Schelter was formally notified that he could
> distribute
> DOE-MACSYMA upon terms of his choosing, in particular t
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:02 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> I have been looking at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, but
> there are various questions and answers about "additional
> permissions" , but nothing in the direction of "additional
> restrictions" that seem to match. From an amateur stan
Just whiling away the time...
On Apr 27, 2009, at 14:02 , mabshoff wrote:
>
>> Well, IANAL. Looking at COPYING in Maxima's source distribution it
>> says:
>>
>> [quote]
>> Maxima is dedicated to the memory of William F. Schelter. On 6
>> October
>> 1998 William F. Schelter was formally notifie
On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:02 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> > I have been looking athttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, but
> > there are various questions and answers about "additional
> > permissions" , but nothing in the direction of "additional
> > res
On Apr 26, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2009, at 2:08 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>> So when I am exposing a new class, i it's quite a lot of typing,
>>> especially the name of the C++ class has to be copied
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> cdef struct c_WeakForm "WeakForm":
>> void add_biform(int i, int j, ...)
>> void add_biform_surf(int i, int j, ...)
>> void add_liform(int i, ...)
>> vo
>> it'd be nice to have some easier way to handle C++ subclasses in
>> Cython. I don't know how it should be done though.
>
> Good point. If we can declare inheritance information, I believe we
> can use the same type infrastructure we use for cdef classes to
> handle this smootly.
I second this.
> But there is certainly still the issue with distribution, i.e. the
> trade press covered the [planned?] deployment of Debian by the
> government of Cuba a couple weeks ago. I wonder who gets into trouble
> for "exporting" Debian in that context - even though there is only a
> minuscule chance th
29 matches
Mail list logo
