On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Fernando Perez wrote:
Yup, we're a little behind... :) Trying to get 3.0 out before the end
of the year. The JupyterHub tool is more admin-oriented, so we don't
have a release date for it yet: people are using it for now straight out
of github, and until we feel that we h
Volker Braun wrote:
>
> I think the mirroring is currently broken either due to the website
> relayout or the boxen move.
>
Things seem to be back in order now.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:39:43 PM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Does this perhaps explain
>
> $ ls .sage/init.sage
> Display all 205 possibilities? (y or n)
> init.sage init.sageNmWQYm init.sagek93xb1.py
>
>
No those garbage files were created by some new earlier version of IP
>
> > Yup, we're a little behind... :) Trying to get 3.0 out before the end
> > of the year. The JupyterHub tool is more admin-oriented, so we don't
> > have a release date for it yet: people are using it for now straight out
> > of github, and until we feel that we have an API and model we re
We're stuck at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17184.
I've also posted on Singular forum:
http://www.singular.uni-kl.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2466&sid=01f281c0cfb23e8e420dbe49dc1a85cb
Help from someone knowing Singular internals would be welcome.
Best,
JP
--
You received this message beca
Hi all, A few of us have been forgetting to put certain dependencies in
tickets when they are necessary. (This is the royal we, guilty as
charged.) Even though it's often clear from the comments, let's make
things easier on the release manager and be sure to be scrupulous about it.
Thanks!
I have a working Sage on OSX 10.10. I suggest to release that shortly, in
case anybody else made the mistake of upgrading soon after the initial
Yosemite release ;-) Please review
http://trac.sagemath.org/query?status=needs_review&keywords=~yosemite
and any outstanding blocker bugs...
--
You
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:57 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>> > Yup, we're a little behind... :) Trying to get 3.0 out before the end
>> > of the year. The JupyterHub tool is more admin-oriented, so we don't
>> > have a release date for it yet: people are using it for now straight out
>> > of github, and u
>
> > I think the lack of progress on sagenb is much more due to the
> > *simultaneous* existence of the (for now, beta) Jupyter and SMC
> projects.
> > Nearly all effort that would have gone to sagenb has gone in those
> > directions - and I'm not criticizing those projects, just recognizing
I think the exact opposite should happen, that the test should be
removed. This could lead to (somewhat) surprising different behaviors for
doctests on (essentially) everyone else's version Sage. So you would need
to either change your .sage/init.sage or have a separate install to do
develop
On 24 October 2014 05:30, kcrisman wrote:
>
>It was an interesting read. The article (at potential risk of starting
>> a firestorm) does seem to suggest that open-source software like Sage is
>> more trustworthy for computational proofs as one can (in principle) verify
>> the code's logic and
On Friday, October 24, 2014 11:04:23 AM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
>I think the exact opposite should happen, that the test should be
> removed. This could lead to (somewhat) surprising different behaviors for
> doctests on (essentially) everyone else's version Sage.
>
Just to make
>
> The fact that it is possible to do it in principle is the important bit,
>
Mandatory, but of course not sufficient. Just recall the recently
discovered bash shell bug which was lurking in the source for more than 10
years.
The important bit is that one can go and check.
>
I'm doing this:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
Does Sage warn somehow the user if a user calls a function which is
*known* to be buggy?
Sometimes, but for example
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
We're stuck at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17184.
I've also posted on Singular foru
To quote from a posting today to the nmbrthry mailing list:
"Here I report my related discovery concerning zeta(3) involving the
harmonic numbers
H(n) = Sum_{k=1}^n 1/k (n = 1,2,3,...).
On October 22, 2014 I found that
zeta(3) = Sum_{k>0} (3*H(k)-1/k)/(k^2*binom(2k,k))
.
> It was fun to read that the day after reading that M-ma gets some
> small integer determinants wrong!
>
Of course, and now what?
Does Sage a better job? # (attention, I'm needling and trolling):
Sage even fails to compute minimal associated primes of the unit ideal
correctly:
R. = QQ[x,y
On 10/23/2014 10:49 PM, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
>
> but it seems that init.sage is not loaded afterwards before tests. Do we
> agree that init.sage should be loaded by sage -t when run on local files ?
>
It used to be loaded even with `sage -t`, but I think the current
default is probably safer (
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Jori Mantysalo wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
>
>> Does Sage warn somehow the user if a user calls a function which is
>> *known* to be buggy?
*YES, we do*. At a Sage days a few years ago, Robert Bradshaw, David
Roe, me and others introduced
>
> "Can We Trust Computer Algebra Systems?"
>
If anyone bothers of my opinion: no.
Jakob
Am Freitag, 24. Oktober 2014 18:45:39 UTC+2 schrieb Jakob Kroeker:
>
>
> It was fun to read that the day after reading that M-ma gets some
>> small integer determinants wrong!
>>
>
> Of course, and now w
>
> If you know of *anything* that should be added, contributions are
> greatly welcome.
>
It is not clear yet if I will ever contribute something substantial to sage
before leaving research,
so here some suggestions (which are sadly of much less value):
For example, Sage has a 100% doctest
Ok, I got over the above hurdle. Some permissions were set wrong and now
sage-6.4.beta4 installs fine. However, now I have the next problem:
sage-5.13 will not build (I need this old version though since not the
entire sage-combinat queue was merged into the git setting yet). Any ideas
how to f
I vaguely remember that this was one of the issues that we had to fix to
build on OSX 10.9. Its probably easiest to run it on a linux box somewhere.
On Friday, October 24, 2014 7:10:59 PM UTC+1, Anne Schilling wrote:
>
> Ok, I got over the above hurdle. Some permissions were set wrong and now
The AMS Notices has a column about using computers to do math, dwelling
on some problems they had with Mathematica:
http://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1249.pdf
The HackerNews discussion immediately brings up Sage, of course:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8505665
Funny quote (th
On 10/24/14, 20:55, Jason Grout wrote:
P.S. It would be interesting to see if Sage can do the calculation they
identified as buggy in mathematica. That would make for a cool
follow-up editorial.
And here's a public worksheet:
https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/49a2531d-9d02-42c9-9db6-f9551f
24 matches
Mail list logo
