Not that I am aware, but it would make for a great (small) GSoC project:
https://wiki.sagemath.org/GSoC/2024
Best,
Travis
On Sunday, March 10, 2024 at 5:52:09 PM UTC+9 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On 10 March 2024 05:24:31 GMT, Steve Dodge wrote:
> >Hello, I was curious to know if there are an
On 11 March 2024 05:39:36 GMT, John H Palmieri wrote:
>Dima's suggestion is appealing, and somewhat along those lines, I like the
>idea changing Sage to use some standard documentation style
>(https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/31044). If the program provides a
>technical writer, though
Having just encountered this "in action", I have a suggestion:
"There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on opinions
expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed via
previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval). The PR
author is presu
It would be helpful for anyone explicitly voting +/-1 to either link to a
previous comment or make a new actual comment (beyond the vote) to clarify.
This is particularly if there have been new commits since the initial
dispute, because for an outside reviewer it can be hard to untangle all
On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 2:13:06 PM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
SageMath could benefit from hiring a technical writer for a project to
improve the Sage documentation. Google Season of Docs is a program that
supports such projects. Some key facts:
- total project budget $5,000 - $15,000 USD
Dear all,
*Summary*
To better support arithmetic on Jacobians and have a more natural
implementation of hyperelliptic curves, we should implement them as toric
varieties with a weighted polynomial ring (1 : 3 : 1) instead of plane
projective curves.
*Yes / No*
*Discussion*
I am currently ho
The change makes sense, but you should investigate if it is at all possible
to do this going through normal deprecation procedures, which would
probably involve having both functionalities for some time (likely via
differently named methods or via a flag implemented in a backward-compatime
way)
... we have a gap between the reference manual (which is extensive but has
no flow) and the thematic tutorials (which are written to tell a story but
are just introductions).
I agree.
- It is very hard to find features and learn how to use them for a subject
that I am not already familia
I chose the weighting (1 : g + 1 : 1) following Galbraith's
textbook https://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~sgal018/crypto-book/ch10.pdf when
implementing the arithmetic on the Jacobian. This is not a "good" answer
though.
I would love to hear from more people about what they use / would want to
use
On Monday 11 March 2024 at 15:04:50 UTC-7 Giacomo Pope wrote:
I chose the weighting (1 : g + 1 : 1) following Galbraith's textbook
https://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~sgal018/crypto-book/ch10.pdf when
implementing the arithmetic on the Jacobian. This is not a "good" answer
though.
I would love to
Yes, I didn't properly think about breaking changes so if I simply add a
new implementation into sage then maybe this thread can switch from a VOTE
to simply people giving advice / feedback if they so wish.
On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 10:24:46 PM UTC Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Monday 11 March 2024
Sage's treatment of weighted polynomial rings is buggy, cf. e.g.
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37167
this is something that should be addressed, one way or another
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:31 PM Giacomo Pope wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> *Summary*
>
> To better support arithmetic on Jaco
12 matches
Mail list logo
