Hi,
Some days ago I sent a bug report using the notebook link to the
google docs
form. I am unable to find that bug report on the web.
Anyway as the thing is trivial I wrote a patch myself.
The problem is that multivariate polynomials do not admit numerator
and
denominator
sage: K.=QQ['x,y']
s
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Note that I have already deleted the experimental repository sage-exp,
> but the documentation build script (I think) still links to or uses
> that deleted repository. This might be due to ticket #5350
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5350
>
> but I may be wrong
William Stein wrote:
>> Whilst I personally think a paid support contract, with the money
>> donated to the Sage project is preferable, agreeing to offer free advice
>> in confidence would go some way to increasing its accepantace in
>> commerical environments.
>
> In point of fact I already do
It's clear what your algebra is: over the base field K=Q(i) it's the
quaternion algebra with parameters 2,5.
I think that sage-nt would be a better forum for this than sage-devel.
Ask to join (at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sage-nt).
John
2009/7/9 Leonard Foret :
>
> The problem is about
I can see another problem here.One could argue that the
denominator of (x+y)/2 was 2 while you code gives 1. So the
documentation needs to be very clear, stating that the denominator of
ever polynomial in any number of variables over a field is always 1.
John
2009/7/9 luisfe :
>
> Hi,
>
> S
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:24 PM, luisfe wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Some days ago I sent a bug report using the notebook link to the
> google docs
> form. I am unable to find that bug report on the web.
>
> Anyway as the thing is trivial I wrote a patch myself.
>
> The problem is that multivariate poly
On Jul 8, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Hello !
>
> I have a library with a C++ function I try to interface with SAGE, and
> two classes are defined :
>
> CoinPackedVector and CoinPackedVectorBase
>
> I only use CoinPackedVector, but one of its functions is defined in
> the header fi
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 11:03:21AM -0700, Craig Citro wrote:
>>
>>> What's the status on this one? I though that the bottom line of the
>>> discussion at SD15 for this one (not to be mixed up with #5986)
>>> was that:
>>>
>>> - Apart fr
On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:46 PM, David Roe wrote:
> Discussion: we currently have CategoryObject._base as a C attribute
> because some elements want fast access to a "base." Is
> CategoryObject the right place to put this? Maybe we should
> generalize the examples of sage.rings.integer_mod.Nat
There was some discussion a month or two back about different algorithms
for prime_pi. IIRC, Mathematica's was the fastest, Sage's was second
fastest and Maple's method was dumb and just counted them like a 10 year
old could do.
I pointed out a link to those with accounts on sage.math.users of
Hi,
I've made an SPKG of a framework Python build -- it was really easy.
The modified spkg-install is on bsd.math.washington.edu as is the spkg,
they are here:
/Users/Prabhu/spkg-install.python
/Users/Prabhu/python-2.6.2.p2.spkg
I'm not going to be available tomorrow (I leave in half an hour)
William, thanks for this hint.
But I still have a little comment.
I've just started
> ./sage -f mpir-1.2.p4
and actually I really was wondering how this can work if I only have the
binary version of sage. But as a surprise to me the log said... (see
below)...
1) That command should be show
I seem to be out of luck. But maybe I did something wrong.
Here my steps.
I downloaded and extracted
sage-4.0.2-linux-Debian_GNU_Linux_5.0_lenny-i686-Linux.tar.gz.
cd sage-4.0.2-linux-Debian_GNU_Linux_5.0_lenny-i686-Linux
./sage -combinat install
./sage # fails becaus of binaries being not for
Hi Ralf,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> I seem to be out of luck. But maybe I did something wrong.
>
> Here my steps.
>
> I downloaded and extracted
> sage-4.0.2-linux-Debian_GNU_Linux_5.0_lenny-i686-Linux.tar.gz.
>
> cd sage-4.0.2-linux-Debian_GNU_Linux_5.0_lenny-i686-L
Hi Ralf,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> William, thanks for this hint.
>
> But I still have a little comment.
>
> I've just started
>
> > ./sage -f mpir-1.2.p4
>
> and actually I really was wondering how this can work if I only have the
> binary version of sage. But as
On Jul 7, 2009, at 6:32 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Dag Sverre
> Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> Jason Grout wrote:
>>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
1) I must be able to use NumPy together with the preparser (it's
just
too much hassle to turn it on and off,
On Jul 9, 2009, at 3:00 AM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> I seem to be out of luck. But maybe I did something wrong.
>
> Here my steps.
>
> I downloaded and extracted
> sage-4.0.2-linux-Debian_GNU_Linux_5.0_lenny-i686-Linux.tar.gz.
>
> cd sage-4.0.2-linux-Debian_GNU_Linux_5.0_lenny-i686-Linux
> ./sage
On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> There was some discussion a month or two back about different
> algorithms
> for prime_pi. IIRC, Mathematica's was the fastest, Sage's was second
> fastest and Maple's method was dumb and just counted them like a 10
> year
> old could do.
> The complete Sage source is contained in any binary distribution of Sage.
I would argue that this statement is wrong unless you defind what
'complete sage source' actually means.
(1) It means all the python and cython code including the makefiles and
possibly a few scripts.
(2) It means (1)
Hi Ralf,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
>> The complete Sage source is contained in any binary distribution of Sage.
>
> I would argue that this statement is wrong unless you defind what
> 'complete sage source' actually means.
I think I was using the wrong phrase. What I
Hi sage-devel,
I just encounted the following strange behaviour:
sage: P = ZZ[x]
sage: l = [randint(-10^4, 10^4) for i in xrange(10^4)]
sage: %timeit h = P(l)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.43 ms per loop
Now putting zeros at the end :
sage: l += [0 for i in xrange(10^4)]
sage: %timeit h = P(l)
10 loo
> Anyway, you are encouraged to use a mirror closest to you for downloading.
But this is not my problem. Of course I used the Berlin mirror.
The problem is the destinction between source and binary distributions
and what they are good for.
Ralf
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Actually, the clever algorithm is very parallelizable, so you could
> have the best of both worlds.
>
> - Robert
That would be interesting. The Mathematica does have some arbitrary
limit on the maximum size it will handle. I forget what it is, but it
would be good
H... looking at
ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/unix/misc/sage/src/index.html
I wonder why these files are not zipped.
Shouldn't gzip, bzip2, 7zip be just fine?
What is the rationale behind distributing unzipped tar files?
Just curious...
Ralf
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
T
Hi Ralf,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> H... looking at
> ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/unix/misc/sage/src/index.html
> I wonder why these files are not zipped.
> Shouldn't gzip, bzip2, 7zip be just fine?
>
> What is the rationale behind distributing unzipped tar files?
Y
> sage -b main
> sage -ba
Thank you for that. That seemed to work and sage starts without throwing
any error message at me?
I then removed devel/sage-combinat and again did.
./sage -combinat install
Compilation seemed to be ok, but after that, running './sage' results
in...(see below)
Hmmm,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 03:12:27PM +0200, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> H... looking at
> ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/unix/misc/sage/src/index.html
> I wonder why these files are not zipped.
> Shouldn't gzip, bzip2, 7zip be just fine?
>
> What is the rationale behind distributing unzipped tar files?
Thanks. That makes sense.
But as you see, some people (me) ask why these .tar files are not
zipped. I guess, a small note on the webpage would clarify that.
"""
The .tar files below contain collections of .spkg files (which are
basically .tar.bz2 files).
"""
Or you put somewhere on that page
On Jul 9, 9:02 am, Pat LeSmithe wrote:
> Minh Nguyen wrote:
> > Note that I have already deleted the experimental repository sage-exp,
> > but the documentation build script (I think) still links to or uses
> > that deleted repository. This might be due to ticket #5350
>
> >http://trac.sagemath.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:51 PM, davidloeffler wrote:
>> Thanks for noting this. This is one of the problems we're trying to
>> eliminate at
>>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6187
>>
>> I will try to update the current patches so that the builder does not
>> throw an error, if an
Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> Thanks. That makes sense.
>
> But as you see, some people (me) ask why these .tar files are not
> zipped. I guess, a small note on the webpage would clarify that.
>
> """
> The .tar files below contain collections of .spkg files (which are
> basically .tar.bz2 files).
>
On 9 Jul 2009, at 10:32, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>> Thanks. That makes sense.
>>
>> But as you see, some people (me) ask why these .tar files are not
>> zipped. I guess, a small note on the webpage would clarify that.
>>
>> """
>> The .tar files below contain collections
On Jul 9, 5:20 pm, Kevin Horton wrote:
> I have tried compressing the sage.*.tar files using gzip and bzip2.
> The compression is insignificant, at least when using the default
> compression levels.
>
> % ls -l *tar*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 XXX staff 215244800 Jun 19 08:46 sage-4.0.2.tar
> -rw-
Davide P. Cervone wrote:
> OK, I installed Ubuntu linux in a Parallels partition on my Mac, and
was able to test the problem (it doesn't occur in Windows or Mac
versions of Firefox). It appears that Firefox 3.5 no longer handles TTF
fonts with non-standard encodings. I have made new versions
Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Jul 9, 5:20 pm, Kevin Horton wrote:
>> I have tried compressing the sage.*.tar files using gzip and bzip2.
>> The compression is insignificant, at least when using the default
>> compression levels.
>>
>> % ls -l *tar*
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 XXX staff 215244800 Jun
Hello everybody !!!
After a discussion from a few days ago where I asked for people
interested in a LP Solver in SAGE, I began to write what I could of
it. I have now what seems to be a "minimal" interface between SAGE and
Clp/Cbc( the Coin-or LP Solver and Branch and Bound solver,
respectively )
Seems like it might be worth it to save 65 MB! The 7z source is small
and looks pretty portable.
-M. Hampton
On Jul 9, 9:37 am, Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Jul 9, 5:20 pm, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> > I have tried compressing the sage.*.tar files using gzip and bzip2.
> > The compression is insig
>
> > Together with this:
>
> >http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html
>
> > it all makes perfect sense to me to be able to do *everything* in the
> > notebook.
>
> :-)
>
> William
Probably a dumb question, but I assume Sage won't have any problems
running on t
If you are editing code that creates shared libraries, please be aware
that the options -shared, -soname, --whole-archive and
--no-whole-archive will NOT be acceptable on Solaris IF the Sun linker
is used, but WILL be if the GNU linker is used.
People use both linkers on Solaris, so different
On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:20 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:51 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In case anybody wants to try out 64-bit Sage on OS X, I posted a
>> binary here:
>>
>>
>> http://wstein.org/home/wstein/binaries/sage-4.1-OSX-10.5-Intel-64bit-i386-Darwin.d
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:51 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In case anybody wants to try out 64-bit Sage on OS X, I posted a binary here:
>
>
> http://wstein.org/home/wstein/binaries/sage-4.1-OSX-10.5-Intel-64bit-i386-Darwin.dmg
>
> Sage almost builds out of the box on 64-bit OS X, except sc
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:20 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:51 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In case anybody wants to try out 64-bit Sage on OS X, I posted a
>>> binary here:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://wstein.org/h
> (2) getting the above two spkg's positively reviewed and into Sage.
I have downloaded it and will develop some 64-bit code with it (Drew
Sutherland's smalljac, for those interested; see #965). I'll take a
look at those spkg reviews if I can squeeze some time out of this
conference.
Nic
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Prabhu
Ramachandran wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've made an SPKG of a framework Python build -- it was really easy.
> The modified spkg-install is on bsd.math.washington.edu as is the spkg,
> they are here:
>
> /Users/Prabhu/spkg-install.python
> /Users/Prabhu/python-2.6.2.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:34 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> I can see another problem here. One could argue that the
> denominator of (x+y)/2 was 2 while you code gives 1. So the
> documentation needs to be very clear, stating that the denominator of
> ever polynomial in any number of variables ov
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Simon King wrote:
>
> Dear Sage-Devel,
>
> I'd like to announce our Sage package for the computation of
> cohomology rings with coefficients in GF(p) for finite p-groups.
>
> The trac ticket is at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6491
> and the documentatio
Some time back I reported some test failures to the mpfr list, which
occurred on one Solaris 10 machine (a Sun T5240 called 't2') but not on
another, which is my own personal machine called 'kestrel'
I showed the results of the test failures compiled with different levels
of opimisation.
t2
On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:20 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Moreover, I just tried and the full test suite passes too. Yeah!
>
I had two failures,
sage -t "devel/sage/doc/en/bordeaux_2008/birds_other.rst"
A mysterious error (perhaps a memory error?) occurred, which may have
crashed doctest.
Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Jul 9, 6:48 pm, Marshall Hampton wrote:
>> Seems like it might be worth it to save 65 MB! The 7z source is small
>> and looks pretty portable.
>>
>> -M. Hampton
>
> I don't know about other linux distributions besides ubuntu, mac osx
> or solaris, but if it is everywh
On Jul 9, 6:48 pm, Marshall Hampton wrote:
> Seems like it might be worth it to save 65 MB! The 7z source is small
> and looks pretty portable.
>
> -M. Hampton
I don't know about other linux distributions besides ubuntu, mac osx
or solaris, but if it is everywhere available as a package, we cou
Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Jul 9, 6:48 pm, Marshall Hampton wrote:
>> Seems like it might be worth it to save 65 MB! The 7z source is small
>> and looks pretty portable.
>>
>> -M. Hampton
>
> I don't know about other linux distributions besides ubuntu, mac osx
> or solaris, but if it is everywh
Dear David,
as Vincent Lefèvre said, the fact that MPFR uses the same CC/CFLAGS as GMP
(by reading them in gmp.h) is a new feature that solves many problems.
However in your case it seems the Solaris compiler (which was used to compile
GMP) fails to correctly compile MPFR.
Either you ca
Paul Zimmermann wrote:
>Dear David,
>
> as Vincent Lefèvre said, the fact that MPFR uses the same CC/CFLAGS as GMP
> (by reading them in gmp.h) is a new feature that solves many problems.
>
> However in your case it seems the Solaris compiler (which was used to compile
> GMP) fails to c
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-07-09 22:30:35 +0100, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>> It would appear that MPFR decides to use gcc from /usr/sfw/bin,
>> despite the fact that is NOT the first compiler in the path. I would
>> have thought it normal for a configure script to use the first
>> version of
Excellent, will do. That was my original idea, but I was thrown off a
bit by the request for membership. Anyway, the request went through
so I'll re-post this there.
Thanks,
Lenny
On Jul 9, 4:24 am, John Cremona wrote:
> It's clear what your algebra is: over the base field K=Q(i) it's the
>
Is possible to change the name of this discussion? I made a mistake,
the lattice is in SL(2, CC) and not SL(2, Z[i]).
Lenny
On Jul 9, 8:02 pm, Leonard Foret wrote:
> Excellent, will do. That was my original idea, but I was thrown off a
> bit by the request for membership. Anyway, the request
Harald,
Another paper that cites Sage! The abstract begins "We show that the
generating function of electrically charged 1/2-BPS states in N=4
supersymmetric CHL Z_N orbifolds of the heterotic string on T^6 are
given by multiplicative eta-products. [...]" It's a good thing David
Loeffler added
-- Forwarded message --
From: Suresh Govindarajan
Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: reference to SAGE
To: William Stein
As I don't use SAGE a lot, I was unaware of the fact that you folks
had added eta products to SAGE! I will, of course, take a look at it
now. How
William Stein wrote:
> Harald,
>
> Another paper that cites Sage! The abstract begins "We show that the
> generating function of electrically charged 1/2-BPS states in N=4
> supersymmetric CHL Z_N orbifolds of the heterotic string on T^6 are
> given by multiplicative eta-products. [...]" It's a
I just noticed an old thread, where a user had problems on squite,
making his own version of some packages with an alpha, heta or rc
release of Sage.
It would be good if alpha/beta/rc releases always showed a message that
they were pre-release versions for developers and not considered stable.
I had a problem on Solaris which was traced to not having the compiler
flag -fPIC when building a shared library. So I submitted a patch to add
that.
Someone had tried to do it before, but had no succeeded, so I removed
their failed attempt, and stuck mine which actually does add the needed
f
On Jul 9, 6:06 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> I just noticed an old thread, where a user had problems on squite,
> making his own version of some packages with an alpha, heta or rc
> release of Sage.
>
> It would be good if alpha/beta/rc releases always showed a message that
> they were pre-rele
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Dr. David
Kirkby wrote:
>
> I just noticed an old thread, where a user had problems on squite,
> making his own version of some packages with an alpha, heta or rc
> release of Sage.
>
> It would be good if alpha/beta/rc releases always showed a message that
> they
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Dr. David
> Kirkby wrote:
>> I just noticed an old thread, where a user had problems on squite,
>> making his own version of some packages with an alpha, heta or rc
>> release of Sage.
>>
>> It would be good if alpha/beta/rc releases always sh
On Jul 9, 8:11 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> John H Palmieri wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 6:06 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> >> I just noticed an old thread, where a user had problems on squite,
> >> making his own version of some packages with an alpha, heta or rc
> >> release of Sage.
>
> >> It wo
John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Jul 9, 6:06 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
>> I just noticed an old thread, where a user had problems on squite,
>> making his own version of some packages with an alpha, heta or rc
>> release of Sage.
>>
>> It would be good if alpha/beta/rc releases always showed a mes
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Dr. David
Kirkby wrote:
>
> John H Palmieri wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 6:06 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
>>> I just noticed an old thread, where a user had problems on squite,
>>> making his own version of some packages with an alpha, heta or rc
>>> release of Sage.
>>>
John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Jul 9, 8:11 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
>> John H Palmieri wrote:
>>> On Jul 9, 6:06 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
I just noticed an old thread, where a user had problems on squite,
making his own version of some packages with an alpha, heta or rc
rel
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6399
was a ticket of mine to allow atlas to build with the Sun or GNU linker
on Solaris. It is marked as '[with patch, needs review]' but has in fact
been incorporated into sage-4.1.rc1
Dave
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To po
Hi Suresh,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:26 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Harald,
>
> Another paper that cites Sage! The abstract begins "We show that the
> generating function of electrically charged 1/2-BPS states in N=4
> supersymmetric CHL Z_N orbifolds of the heterotic string on T^6 are
> given
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:37 PM, David Simmons-Duffin wrote:
> I didn't realize that Sage could do Lie algebra manipulations.
> What are the pros and cons for writing an interface to LiE as
> opposed to simply extending Sage's existing functionality? Is LiE
> faster, or has it implemented som
71 matches
Mail list logo
