Good point! Here is a snapshot of the current documentation:
http://www.stp.dias.ie/~vbraun/Sage/html/en/reference/sage/geometry/cone.html#sage.geometry.cone.ConvexRationalPolyhedralCone.M_quotient_basis
Right now, I'm essentially using abbreviations N="spanned_lattice" and
M="spanned_lattice_dua
Hi folks,
While preparing the release note for Sage 4.4.4, I noticed that Sage
4.4.4 has two Singular spkg's:
[1] singular-3-1-0-4-20100214.spkg
[2] singular-3.1.0.4.p6.spkg
The first one is a remnant from Sage 4.4.3, while the second was added
in Sage 4.4.4.
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
--
To
On 06/24/10 01:26 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
Hi David,
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:24:44 +0100, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
So far, on 3 systems where this has been tested, there are 5 failures on each,
though the 5 failures differ between systems - with one exception
(test_distutils) which seems to fa
On 06/24/10 09:07 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
While preparing the release note for Sage 4.4.4, I noticed that Sage
4.4.4 has two Singular spkg's:
[1] singular-3-1-0-4-20100214.spkg
[2] singular-3.1.0.4.p6.spkg
The first one is a remnant from Sage 4.4.3, while the second was added
in Sage
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 06/24/10 09:07 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> While preparing the release note for Sage 4.4.4, I noticed that Sage
>> 4.4.4 has two Singular spkg's:
>>
>> [1] singular-3-1-0-4-20100214.spkg
>> [2] singular-3.1.0.4.p6.spkg
On 06/24/10 09:29 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 06/24/10 01:26 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
I got the following:
1 test failed:
test_distutils
Best,
Alex
You are doing better than most. But *everyone* gets that failure. I
don't know how critical that is in Sage, but either the test is broken
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:29:57 +0100, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> On 06/24/10 01:26 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> > On:
> >
> > [ghi...@artin ~]$ uname -a
> > Linux artin 2.6.34-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Jun 19 00:07:49 CEST 2010
> > x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
> On 06/24/10 09:29 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> > On 06/24/10 01:26 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> >> I got the following:
> >>
> >> 1 test failed:
> >> test_distutils
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Alex
> >
> > You are doing better than most. But *everyone* gets that failure. I
> > don't know how criti
On 06/24/10 09:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
On 06/24/10 09:07 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
While preparing the release note for Sage 4.4.4, I noticed that Sage
4.4.4 has two Singular spkg's:
[1] singular-3-1-0-4-20100214.spkg
[2]
> On 6/23/10 6:05 AM, David Poetzsch-Heffter wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I found (and fixed) a few Bugs in the file local/bin/sage-preparse.
>>
>> These are the things I fixed:
>>
>> * The module docstrings disappeared when preparsing because the
>> preparse_file function inserted those numeric_literals de
Mitesh Patel has done a lot of work to get Sage to build .spkg files in
parallel, which should really speed up builds on modern multi-core machines.
Did all the code get merged,
$ export SAGE_PARALLEL_SPKG_BUILD=yes
should build the packages in parallel?
I thought it was all merged, but I don
Some (about 20%) of .spkg files in Sage have a file spkg-check, which runs a
test suite if one runs
$ export SAGE_CHECK=yes
$ make
About 80% of Sage packages do not have an spkg-check file, which means the code
can't be tested even if there is a test suite. I added a few spkg-check files
whic
On 06/23/10 11:39 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
The difference between the toric lattice computations and the root
lattices is that the (co)weight lattices are one of the main features
of interest to the end user, while the various toric lattices are
mostly of internal use for computing something else.
I opened a trac ticket including the patch here:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9325
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at h
Here's a suggestion, which I think could be useful.
If a reviewer sees that a bug on trac is an upstream bug, that they are required
to see evidence that this has been reported upstream before the fix gets a
positive review.
Hence
AUTHOR
MUST state he has reported the bug upstream, and if so
William said the other day he was not aware of any fake gcc's. Well numpy has a
really dumb one, which looks like someone tried to work around 64-bit issues at
some time in the past.
drkir...@hawk:~/sage-4.4.2/spkg/standard/numpy-1.3.0.p3$ cat gcc_fake
#!/bin/bash
/usr/bin/gcc -m64 $@
now on
Hi,
I get two test errors on Scientific Linux 5.1 (32 bit).
test_grp and test_distutils
test_grp is a normal problem on this system.
test test_grp failed -- Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/math/sage/spkg/build/python-2.6.4.p9/src/Lib/test/
test_grp.py", line 32, in test_values
Probably makes sense for bugs that produce obviously wrong results,
but what about bugs in the makesystem / autotools abuse / enabling of
shared libraries?
1) Sometimes you only have time for a quick build fix where doing
things right might require a major effort.
2) Testing, say, new autotools t
On 06/24/10 04:14 PM, Adam Webb wrote:
test_distutils passes if I use a plain python 2.6.5 tarball. This is
consistent with the problem being in Sage or at least in the
environment used for building packages.
Adam
That's interesting!
So far everyone seems to see this.
* You on Scientific L
On 06/24/10 04:20 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
Probably makes sense for bugs that produce obviously wrong results,
but what about bugs in the makesystem / autotools abuse / enabling of
shared libraries?
I don't fully understand you here.
Sometimes it is difficult to really get to the bottom of a p
I don't know if there is work being done to create the clickable applications
for OS X for this release (I know being release manager is hard enough), so I
took the liberty of creating one, for intel at least. I created them on my
MacBook Pro:
Darwin parduc.home 10.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10
If you look at the thread "Test your Python build" you will see
* Everyone so far gets a test failure of "distutils" if they use my Python
package at
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/revised-patches/python-2.6.4.p9.spkg
which allows Python to be tested.
* Adam web says he does no
Hi folks,
In Sage 4.4.4, I can't build the PDF version of the reference manual,
even though the HTML version builds fine. Here is the error messsage:
Overfull \hbox (41.96407pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 73487--73489
[]\T1/pcr/m/n/10 MyClass2.__classcall__() \T1/ptm/m/n/10 should re-turn the
On Jun 24, 2:31 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> Mitesh Patel has done a lot of work to get Sage to build .spkg files in
> parallel, which should really speed up builds on modern multi-core machines.
>
> Did all the code get merged,
>
> $ export SAGE_PARALLEL_SPKG_BUILD=yes
>
> should build the pac
Hello, this is my first post, and I'm very new to Sage. I appreciate
any help anyone might offer.
The file sage/quadratic_forms/quadratic_forms_equivalence_testing.py
asks for an optional Souvigner package. it looks like this package
might not exist. Here's the link to the track posted about a
> I guess someone should open a ticket for this to be added as a standard
> package, then it tested extensively before being committed.
A few things should happen before we make this a standard spkg. First,
I think we should merge all the newly-positive-reviewed graph theory
tickets using LP, to m
On Jun 23, 11:41 pm, John Cremona wrote:
> Doesn't adding
> # not tested
> work?
Yes, but I suppose this is cheating, too. On the one hand, this
particular code is completely trivial (and it calls the method
"_open", which is doctested), so not testing it but pretending that we
do is not so bad.
#3186 - fix 64 bit OSX build support for numpy
On 24 Cze, 16:59, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> William said the other day he was not aware of any fake gcc's. Well numpy has
> a
> really dumb one, which looks like someone tried to work around 64-bit issues
> at
> some time in the past.
>
> drkir..
Anna,
Welcome to the group!
It looks like this code comes from the following ticket:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4470
in which Michael Abshoff comments:
commit 10629 is mostly the AUTO code by Bernd Souvignier - the code
has been made available under a GPL V2+ compatible license,
On Jun 24, 12:14 pm, Anna Haensch wrote:
> Hello, this is my first post, and I'm very new to Sage. I appreciate
> any help anyone might offer.
>
> The file sage/quadratic_forms/quadratic_forms_equivalence_testing.py
> asks for an optional Souvigner package. it looks like this package
> might n
On 06/24/10 05:05 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Jun 24, 2:31 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
Mitesh Patel has done a lot of work to get Sage to build .spkg files in
parallel, which should really speed up builds on modern multi-core machines.
Did all the code get merged,
$ export SAGE_PARALLEL_SP
On 06/24/10 05:44 PM, Ryszard Wojciechowski wrote:
#3186 - fix 64 bit OSX build support for numpy
Thank you.
I would have to say, what an idiotic way that was to fix a problem! I don't like
the idea of a fake gcc, but if one is going to have one, at least it should not
have had a hard-coded
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> In Sage 4.4.4, I can't build the PDF version of the reference manual,
> even though the HTML version builds fine. Here is the error messsage:
>
> Overfull \hbox (41.96407pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 73487--73489
> []\T1
On 06/24/10 05:28 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
I guess someone should open a ticket for this to be added as a standard
package, then it tested extensively before being committed.
A few things should happen before we make this a standard spkg. First,
I think we should merge all the newly-positive-re
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 06/24/10 05:44 PM, Ryszard Wojciechowski wrote:
>>
>> #3186 - fix 64 bit OSX build support for numpy
>
> Thank you.
>
> I would have to say, what an idiotic way that was to fix a problem!
> Dave
Patch by Michael Abshoff, giving a posi
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> The problem can be solved by avoid using "":class:" with "..
> rubric::". That is, change the line
>
> .. rubric:: Migrating classes to :class:`UniqueRepresentation` and unpickling
>
> to
>
> .. rubric:: Migrating classes to ``UniqueRep
Hello,
I'd like to make some tweaks to the workflow on Sage's trac server, in
particular the annoying fact that you can't go from needs_work to
positive_review (in the case that someone forgets to update the status
when they post in reply to a reviewer). I'm pretty sure I have the
right permission
On Jun 24, 1:30 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> > Hi folks,
>
> > In Sage 4.4.4, I can't build the PDF version of the reference manual,
> > even though the HTML version builds fine. Here is the error messsage:
>
> > Overfull \hbox (
Hi kcrisman,
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:09 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, is that a bug that needs to be reported
> upstream to Sphinx/ReST,
I have reported this issue to sphinx-dev:
https://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev/
But my email hasn't gone through the moderator(s) y
On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 06/24/10 05:05 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Jun 24, 2:31 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
Mitesh Patel has done a lot of work to get Sage to build .spkg
files in
parallel, which should really speed up builds on modern multi-core
machine
> On 06/24/10 04:14 PM, Adam Webb wrote:
> > test_distutils passes if I use a plain python 2.6.5 tarball. This is
> > consistent with the problem being in Sage or at least in the
> > environment used for building packages.
> >
> > Adam
>
> That's interesting!
>
> So far everyone seems to see thi
On 24 June 2010 09:33, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:41 pm, John Cremona wrote:
>> Doesn't adding
>> # not tested
>> work?
>
> Yes, but I suppose this is cheating, too. On the one hand, this
> particular code is completely trivial (and it calls the method
> "_open", which is doctested),
On 06/24/10 08:45 PM, François Bissey wrote:
On 06/24/10 04:14 PM, Adam Webb wrote:
test_distutils passes if I use a plain python 2.6.5 tarball. This is
consistent with the problem being in Sage or at least in the
environment used for building packages.
Adam
That's interesting!
So far everyo
On Jun 24, 3:57 am, Volker Braun wrote:
> Good point! Here is a snapshot of the current documentation:
>
> http://www.stp.dias.ie/~vbraun/Sage/html/en/reference/sage/geometry/c...
>
> Right now, I'm essentially using abbreviations N="spanned_lattice" and
> M="spanned_lattice_dual" in the method
On 06/24/10 07:58 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
It would be good if Mitesh's code for building packages in parallel
could be merged soon, as it could make a *huge* benefit to users and
developers alike.
Of course, I'd like to see my OpenSola
Today I helped Matt Greenberg solve (I think) a bug in modular symbols.
His complaint was that the following does not work:
sage: M = ModularSymbols(389,2,1,GF(7))
sage: C = M.cuspidal_subspace()
sage: N = C.new_subspace()
sage: D = N.decomposition()
sage: D[1].q_eigenform(10, 'a')
After a while
Hi,
I have written functions for the hilbert symbol and the legendre
symbol. It seems reasonable to group them with number fields but they
do not need to be a member functions since they don't require a
reference to the number field. Where should I put them?
Thanks,
Aly
--
To post to this g
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, aly.dei...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi,
> I have written functions for the hilbert symbol and the legendre
> symbol. It seems reasonable to group them with number fields but they
> do not need to be a member functions since they don't require a
> reference to the numb
Dear All,
Talking with the local printers, we can make Sage Days 22 T-shirts a
reality. The price will be about $11 per shirt. If you want a shirt
and you haven't emailed me already, please do so by 3pm tomorrow
(Friday) so that I can guarantee the shirts get in by the end of the
workshop.
I've g
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
> Today I helped Matt Greenberg solve (I think) a bug in modular symbols.
>
> His complaint was that the following does not work:
>
> sage: M = ModularSymbols(389,2,1,GF(7))
> sage: C = M.cuspidal_subspace()
> sage: N = C.new_subspace()
> sage:
Ewald's book "Combinatorial convexity and algebraic geometry" defines
the cospan of a (not strictly convex) cone to be its maximal linear
subspace. I think we should stick to "dual" when it comes to lattices
since this in the standard nomenclature in toric geometry.
Volker
On Jun 25, 12:58 am, A
51 matches
Mail list logo
