On Wednesday 11 Nov 2015 04:06:21 Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I just discovered that Sage installs a Boost library (it's, curiously,
> called boost-cropped, but according to its SPKG.txt, currently contains all
> of Boost, without patches).
>
> The current version is 1.52. I disc
Hi all,
I use it. Not as much as I used to (my research moved on) but it would be
rather if it was gone. I also know that some people in my field use it, i.e.
the BooleanPolynomialRing. If that was gone, we'd go from okay-ish to hell-ish
for computing with an object which quite naturally arises
I started talking to some people from the symbolic computation community to
discuss options (e.g. if someone wants to take over maintenance). Hence, don't
rush to a conclusion please, I'd really like to keep PolyBoRi around somehow
but don't want to be (sole) maintainer.
Cheers,
Martin
On Thur
Hi,
so, the Singular team *wants* to keep PolyBoRi alive, but it's currently not
clear if and when they *can* devote resources to it. This will be clarified
over the next few months it seems.
Cheers,
Martin
On Friday 12 Jun 2015 10:14:53 Martin Albrecht wrote:
> I started talking to some peopl
Hi all,
On Friday 12 Jun 2015 13:45:05 R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> What about this:
>
> Now: We work on making polybori an optional package in sage.
> * At least going by this thread, the number of people who use polybori in
> Sage is small enough for it to make sense to have polybori as an option
Hi all,
FYI, I put this out. Let's see if there *are* other users besides me:
https://martinralbrecht.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/polybori-is-dead-it-needs-your-help/
Cheers,
Martin
On Saturday 13 Jun 2015 11:00:16 Martin Albrecht wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Friday 12 Jun 2015 13:45:05 R. Andrew Ohan
On Saturday 13 Jun 2015 10:08:32 Francois Bissey wrote:
> > On 13/06/2015, at 22:00, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Friday 12 Jun 2015 13:45:05 R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> >> What about this:
> >&
Hi all,
On Saturday 13 Jun 2015 10:41:15 Francois Bissey wrote:
> I think Andrew has already done quite a bit of the porting to autotools and
> some python 3 fixes. But neither he or I want to be a maintainer - at least
> for the long term.
ah, sorry that I missed that. Great! How about this:
1.
On Sunday 14 Jun 2015 17:21:21 R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> I think the main reason why Sage has its own Cython bindings is mainly
> historical -- they existed before polybori added their own python bindings.
> It would probably be a better idea to use polybori's own bindings in Sage
> -- it makes no s
On Saturday 20 Jun 2015 11:10:21 William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Titouan COLADON
>
> wrote:
> > We propose a new C++ package implementing the F4 algorithm.
> >
> > We open this post in order to make it standard if the community agree.
>
> To clarify, I think these are t
On Sunday 21 Jun 2015 02:35:19 Han Frederic wrote:
> I'd like to point out that recently http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12375
> was closed. I'd like also to thank here all the participants.
>
> Since sage 6.8.beta5, giac and its cython interface giacpy are avaible as
> optional packages.
>
>
Agreed, I was just hoping someone else would do the work for me :)
On Monday 29 Jun 2015 14:59:15 Simon King wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 2015-06-29, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel wrote:
> > Can we add a more convenient interface for computing Gröbner bases with
>
Hi,
I'd just add a function groebner_basis(F) to sage.libs.giac (or wherever the
Giac Cython interface lives) which takes a Sage sequence, computes a Gröbner
basis and returns a Sage sequence.
Integrating that into multi_polynomial_ideal.py is then very easy.
I've created
http://trac.sage
13 matches
Mail list logo
