Sorry for the necropost... believe it or not, this has come up again
at http://ask.sagemath.org/question/30117/after-upgrade-to-69-we-obtain-sigill
My guess is that whatever machine we use to compile the 10.10 binaries has
some instructions not on those older chips?
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 at
Anyone know about this? Have I already posted about it?
https://github.com/rljacobson/FoxySheep
Looking around a bit it looks like Sage is definitely a target for this in
the future. Anyway, the author is planning to give at talk at the JMM:
http://jointmathematicsmeetings.org/amsmtgs/2181_abst
The following code crashes and asks me to report this as a bug:
sage: Qp = pAdicField(11)
sage: G = DirichletGroup(11,Qp)
sage: omega = G.0
sage: M = ModularSymbols(omega^2,2)
sage: M
Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 +
7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:33 AM, wrote:
> The following code crashes and asks me to report this as a bug:
>
> sage: Qp = pAdicField(11)
>
> sage: G = DirichletGroup(11,Qp)
>
> sage: omega = G.0
>
> sage: M = ModularSymbols(omega^2,2)
For what it is worth, I'm extremely surprised that the Modula
But it's working otherwise! Meaning that if I don't pass to the cuspidal
subspace, it appears to be correctly computing slopes. And it is so much
faster than working over Q(zeta_11)...
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:33:59 PM UTC-4, robert@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> The following code crashes
http://www.computingreviews.com/review/review_review.cfm?listname=highlight&review_id=143718
--
William (http://wstein.org)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:08 PM, wrote:
> But it's working otherwise! Meaning that if I don't pass to the cuspidal
> subspace, it appears to be correctly computing slopes. And it is so much
> faster than working over Q(zeta_11)...
Well that's interesting! Other people have worked a lot on th
>
> http://www.computingreviews.com/review/review_review.cfm?listname=highlight&review_id=143718
>
>
>
Nice! Note also the shout-outs to the Beezer and Judson texts.
Harald, can you add this to the webpage of Sage-related reviews?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
could anyone please tell me which computation evaluated in the attached
file is right?
Thank you.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsub
Hi,
Le 20/10/2015 22:28, Sarfo a écrit :
could anyone please tell me which computation evaluated in the attached
file is right?
Thank you.
All of them?
Snark on #sagemath
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from thi
I bet on : all of them
log is same as ln, and writing a function is a matter of taste
symbolic integration of a function is function, up to a constant
Dominique
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
Thanks for the example! I'm hoping to work on p-adic linear algebra over
the next few months, and having examples of failures is always useful to
test improvements.
But that's a pretty impressive discrepancy, between 1345499989865120018402
and 0. I don't have time to look into it now, but I woul
12 matches
Mail list logo
