On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>> It seems that none of these files has anything named 'stats':
>>
>> It appears that 'sage_timeit.py' was not updated by '-u
t this right. If all else fails I guess I
can re-build from source and re-apply the changes (actually just
Mike's patches from the trac item for axiom).
Regards,
Bill Page.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> Still unhappy. Did it really mean 'don't forget to commit'? Where?
>>
> You just run "hg ci" to commit the merge. Then to make the
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:14 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Bill Page wrote:
>> After the merge the dates on the 'sage_timeit.py' file did not
>> change and there is no 'class SageTimeitResult' in that file.
>
> You definitely haven't upgraded to s
e(x)
...
mx_time = timeit.eval('integrand.integrate(x)')
The first one gets the value for comparison and the second time to get
the cpu time.
Isn't there some way to combine these operations in Sage? I tried:
mx_time = timeit.eval('test_int = integrand.integrate(x)')
but th
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2008, at 12:25 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> That magic worked. 'integral_test1.sage' runs as expected. Now
>> I'm happy. :-)
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> Great. If you have any suggest
Is there some confusion of release numbers here:
Release 190 sage-3.2.1.tar 204 MB 2008-12-19
Release 189 sage-3.2.2.tar 205 MB 2008-12-19
at http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/src ?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email t
I've got a build failure in Atlas on Debian. Any ideas?
--
p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 \n \l
p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ cat /etc/debian_version
4.0
p...@billpage:~/sage-3.2.2$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)
--
B
here updating atlas to have pretuned
> info for the new hardware would help a huge amount.
>
Is there some way that I can avoid this "tuning"?
> William
>
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 1:58 pm, Bill Page wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
&
hardcode the install PATH
(please wait at
most a few minutes)...
Do not interrupt this.
Setting permissions of DOT_SAGE directory so only you can read and write it.
sage: 1+1
2
sage: exit
-
What do you think: Should I ignore the warning for now?
Regards,
Bill Page.
--~--~-~--~~--
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:37 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 3:13 pm, William Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> > Michael,
>>
>> > This "tuning" stuff seems to take an unusually long time... :-(
>>
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:36 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> ...
>> Then I tried
>>
>> p...@billpage:~$ wget
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/linux/64bit/sage-3.2.1-Debian_x86_64-opteron-x86_64-Linux.ta
educe source package using CSL on Debian
4.0 however it failed to run the complete 'make test-all' suite.
Commits to the svn archive show that open-reduce project developers
like Arthur Norman (also the developer of CSL) are actively working on
correcting these problems.
http://sourceforge.
pen source release. Over the next
few days I will be testing the new configuration and I will certainly
file bug reports for any REDUCE-related problems I find.
Regards,
Bill Page.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 12:51 PM, you wrote:
> OK - my reply to you did not go to the general group. If you think
&g
agonalMatrix [0,0,0,0])')
sage: e1=axiom('x*e(1)$%s'%(LambdaK.name()))
sage: e2=axiom('x*e(2)$%s'%(LambdaK.name()))
sage: e3=axiom('x*e(3)$%s'%(LambdaK.name()))
sage: e4=axiom('x*e(4)$%s'%(LambdaK.name()))
sage: a=3*e2*e1 + 4*e1
sage: b
/4036
that are not yet in the Sage distribution (review needed). See also
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4633
The error message you show seems typical of the problems that these
patches solve.
Regards,
Bill Page.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM, luis wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
>
27;%(LambdaK.name()))
sage: e3=axiom('e(3)$%s'%(LambdaK.name()))
sage: e4=axiom('e(4)$%s'%(LambdaK.name()))
sage: var('x,y,z')
(x, y, z)
sage: a=x*e1*e2
sage: b=x*e1*e3
sage: c=y*e4*e3
sage: a*b
0
sage: a*c
- x y e e e e
1 2 3 4
sage:
Regards,
Bill Page.
-
iCAS developers to review this ticket so that we can
finally get it into Sage! :-)
Regards,
Bill Page.
>
> On Jan 17, 4:10 pm, Bill Page wrote:
>> Luis,
>>
>> Now that I have had some coffee, let me also give you a slightly
>> better example :-)
>>
>>
package for
Sage, so I haven't had much incentive to try to do more. Specifically:
what can I do to help get these patches into Sage?
Regards,
Bill Page.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 17, 8:56 am, Bill Page wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 200
eep up. Since I want to accomplish other
things with Sage and Axiom besides development work and no one has
expressed much interest in the interface, this issue has just been
pushed to the bottom of the pile until someone posts something that
seems directly related.
Regards,
Bill Page.
On Sat, Jan
rs. Could you please take
> a look at it (the empty lines are really output empty lines).
>
What you show below is typical of a synchronization problem between
Sage and FriCAS.
Regards,
Bill Page.
> Thanks again for your time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Luis
&
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM, luis wrote:
> ...
> On Jan 18, 3:38 pm, Bill Page wrote:
>> You could try the patch discussed in this email:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/c12983a22e0b7d90
>>
>
> I applied the first patch mentioned in t
> make the ticket get picked up by the wrong report and I will then
> rename it.
>
Are phrases like "needs review", "needs rebase", etc. a standard part
of trac or just something added-on for Sage?
>> (d) Email someone to ask for an immediate quick review. I
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Jan 18, 7:46 am, Bill Page wrote:
>> Let us know if you have any problems/questions applying Mike's
>> patches.
>>
>> If you become a dedicated user of Axiom within Sage (like I am),
>> then this migh
t;. To apply
it manually just add the lines:
'DLOG(':'log(',
'DEXP(':'exp(',
'::(':'', ',Symbol)':'',
after
s = multiple_
I just created a new experimental version of the FriCAS package for
sage. You can download and install it as follows:
$ wget http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/page/packages/fricas-1.0.5.spkg
$ .../sage -f fricas-1.0.5.spkg
For more info or to report problems see
http://trac.sagemath.or
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:56 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> I just created a new experimental version of the FriCAS package for
>> sage. You can download and install it as follows:
>>
>> $ wget http:
I really like TinyMCE but I have a "new user" question:
Double-clicking on some existing text in a worksheet works fine, but
how do I insert a new text cell? Of course I can go to the old raw
text Edit mode, but that seems SO clumsy now that there is TinyMCE.
--~--~-~--~~~
16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> I really like TinyMCE but I have a "new user" question:
>> Double-clicking on some existing text in a worksheet works fine, but
>> how do I insert a new text c
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:22 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> Shouldn't there be a more visible way - similar to what you do to
>> create other new cells?
>>
>
> Any suggestions?
>
What I was lo
s?
>
I don't think this has anything to do with sounding/looking "too
simplified". Simple is better and beautiful. This is about visual
design - creating something that both looks nice *and* works well - an
art that engineers (and apparently also mathematicians :-) often lack.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> What if the bar included "evaluate" as well?
>> ___
>> |__ evaluate |_ new command _| new
by double-clicking on the remaining text section that follows the
command to continue revising the text and then at some point split it
again for another computation. That way, the text editing mode becomes
the primary mode for the user, escaping only to perform computa
ss ctrl-shift-;, and type my note.
>
Except for the mysterious ctrl-shift- key combinations, I still like
this idea better. Besides these "hidden" key short-cuts, I presume
that these same functions would be available from a mouse click?
I also like you idea of splitting math cells
age is much too aggressive -
especially as applied when coding. As Ralf said: perhaps it makes
sense for interactive use. Would it be possible to enable/disable some
features dynamically?
Regards,
Bill Page
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send emai
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
> On 11 Mrz., 14:06, Bill Page wrote:
>
>> I think the new coercion model in Sage is much too aggressive -
>> especially as applied when coding. As Ralf said: perhaps it makes
>> sense for interactive use. Would
sn't seem like the sort
> of difference that would be helpful during debugging :)
>
Yes, I would find this very helpful - particularly option 3.
In that case why wouldn't
GF(5)(3) in ZZ
also return a ValueError?
Regards,
Bill Page.
--~--~-~--~~~-
lements of GF(5), i.e. rely on operator polymorphism rather than
non-strict coercion in such cases.
Regards,
Bill Page.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:13 PM, David Roe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
>> > ...
>> > Does this mean you want GF(5)(3)*2 and RR(pi)*2 to fail? These
>> > currently
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> OK, my last post on this tread for a while, I promise :).
>
I hope no one is asking you to not post on this subject (priorities
and time constraints notwithstanding)... :-(
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Bill Page wrote:
interpreting 3 as an integer, there is
little choice but to *convert* it to GF(5)(3) when necessary but this
is not a safe coercion in general.
Regards,
Bill Page.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from t
an find a situation in
pure Python (i.e. using only the standard Python library definitions
for == ) that gives the following result:
Python 2.4.6 (#2, Dec 20 2008, 15:02:30)
[GCC 4.3.2] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or &q
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> Not that this really has much to do with computer algebra or
>> mathematics per se, but I am curious if anyone can find a situation in
>> pure Python (i.e. using only the standard Python library definitions
losophies), I think the fact that you (and perhaps others) might
be "offended" by the implication of the subject of this thread shows a
rather profound misunderstanding of the relationship between computer
programming and mathematics. "Implementing mathematics" should not be
seems to be running fine and
FriCAS works as expected.
Is it safe to assume that this message is harmless - perhaps an
artifact of the way Sage is installed on this virtual machine?
Regards,
Bill Page.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
ow it's current status but I used it to install the fricas spkg:
http://code.google.com/p/spdproject/wiki/AdditionalPackages
Regards,
Bill Page.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The for the source code repository on http://nb.sagemath.org/ poi
I tried uploading the zip file but Sage Notebook version 4.6.1
complains that it is not an sws file. Is this unpacking of a zip file
a new feature or am I doing it wrong?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
> If you are curious how the book looks as worksheets with embedded Sage
>
Oops, sorry I spoke too quickly. I see. Apparently nnpacking does not
work from a URL, but does work if you first download the file and then
upload if by choosing the file instead of just entering the URL.
Thanks for making this available!
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>
support enabled?
Regards,
Bill Page.
On 25 July 2013 13:56, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>>> http://codemirror.net/mode/clike/index.html
>>
>> Ah, on can enter code there! I hadn't realized that at first.
>>
>&
Ralf or Waldek,
Does the fricas configure option --enable-aldor= ... Aldor root dir
... work with the new release of Aldor? Has anyone tried it yet?
Is there perhaps an Ubuntu compatible binary version of fricas that
has Aldor already enabled?
Regards,
Bill Page.
On 25 July 2013 14:42
conjugate without making explicit assumptions
about variables.
Regards,
Bill Page.
On 13 November 2014 10:29, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> Yes. Note also here:
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AbsoluteValue.html
>
> which says that complex derivative of d|z|/dz does not exist, as
> Cau
On 13 November 2014 12:16, Bill Page wrote:
>
> The Wirtinger derivative of abs(x) is 1/2 x/abs(x). Its total
> Wirtinger derivative is x/abs(x).
>
Sorry, I should have written that the Wirtinger derivative of abs(x) is
1/2 conjugate(x)/abs(x)
Bill.
--
You received this mes
On 13 November 2014 19:24, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Ondřej Čertík
> wrote:
>>
>> As you said, the function is analytic if it doesn't functionally
>> depend on conjugate(z), as can be shown easily. So |z| or
>> Re z are not analytic, while z^2 is. If the function is
Sorry, I hit send before I was quite ready. To continue ...
On 13 November 2014 19:24, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Ondřej Čertík
> wrote:
> ...
> For example, for |z| we get:
>
> |z|' = \partial |z| / \partial x = d |z| / d z + d |z| / d
> conjugate(z) = conjugate(z
On 13 November 2014 14:47, maldun wrote:
>
> Although this has some sense in complex analysis one should be careful
> with 'deriving' the absolute value, since it results in the weak derivative
> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_derivative) , which is in a broader sense
> the derivative in the
On 14 November 2014 02:19, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Ondřej Čertík
> wrote:
>> ...
>> Ok, thanks for the confirmation.
>>
>> There is an issue though --- since |z| is not analytic, the
>> derivatives depend on the direction. So along "x" you get
>
> |z|' = \partial
On 14 November 2014 13:18, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2014 8:57 AM, "Bill Page" wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that we should forget about x and y. All we really need is
>>
>> |z|' = d |z| / d z = conjugate(z) / (2*|z|)
>>
>&
On 14 November 2014 14:29, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2014 11:30 AM, "Bill Page" wrote:
>>
>> What do you mean by "the real derivative"?
>
> The absolute value doesn't have a complex derivative, but it has a real
> derivative, over
Vladimir V. Kisil kisilv's patch
http://www.ginac.de/pipermail/ginac-devel/2013-November/002053
looks like a good start to me especially if one doesn't want to
consider the issue of derivatives of non-analytic functions in
general.
On 17 November 2014 10:14, kcrisman wrote:
> For reference (sin
On 17 November 2014 15:17, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> I am sorry for the confusion. What I am proposing is that the
>> Wirtinger derivative(s) be considered the fundamental case (valid
>> for complex or even quaterni
On 17 November 2014 23:16, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. So your point is that 2) is not
> sufficient, that we really need two Wirtinger derivatives --- it's
> just that one can be expressed using the other and a conjugate,
> so perhaps CAS can only return one,
On 18 November 2014 09:02, David Roe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> > I think you are overly focused on trying to define a derivative that
>> > reduces to the conventional derivative of non-analytic functions
>> > over the
On 18 November 2014 12:29, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:28 AM, David Roe wrote:
>> ...
>> Because derivative is not just used in the context of functions of a
>> complex variable (whether they are analytic or not). Probably more
>> than 90% of Sage users don't know any comple
On 18 November 2014 13:41, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Bill Page
> wrote:
>> ...
>> Have you had a chance to consider the issue of the chain-rule yet?
>
> Yes. Very straightforward, as I suggested in my last email. Just start with:
>
On 18 November 2014 14:14, Bill Page wrote:
> On 18 November 2014 13:41, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Bill Page
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Have you had a chance to consider the issue of the chain-rule yet?
>>
>> Yes. Very str
On 18 November 2014 15:19, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Bill Page
> wrote:
>>
>> abs(x).diff(x)
>>
>> would return the symbolic expression
>>
>> conjugate(x)/(2*abs(x)) + conjugate(x)/(2*abs(x))* e^{-2*i*theta}
&
On 18 November 2014 17:40, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>
> In my notation, the Wirtinger derivative is d f(z) / d z and d f(z) /
> d conjugate(z). The Df(z) / Dz is the complex derivative taking in
> direction theta (where it could be theta=0). Given the chain rule, as
> I derived above using chain rules
On 18 November 2014 21:22, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Bill Page
wrote:
>> On 18 November 2014 17:40, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>>>
>>> In my notation, the Wirtinger derivative is d f(z) / d z and d f(z) /
>>> d conjugate(z). The
On 2014-11-19 9:36 AM, "Bill Page" wrote:
> ...
> Then I noticed that if we have f=z we get
>
> conjugate(z).diff(z)
>
> which is 0. So the 2nd term is 0 and the result is just the first
Wirtinger derivative.
>
> Perhaps I am misinterpreting something?
>
2xxabs(log(x))
Type:
Expression(Integer)
On 19 November 2014 10:19, Bill Page wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-19 9:36 AM, "Bill Page" wrote:
> > ...
> > Then I noticed that if we have f=z we get
> >
> > conjugate(z).diff(z)
> >
&
ion(Integer)
(11) -> D(abs(x)^2,x)
_
(11) x + x
Type:
Expression(Integer)
Bill.
On 19 November 2014 11:51, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ondřej Čertík
wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:32 A
On 19 November 2014 21:23, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>> Since this mostly concerns FriCAS I am cross posting to that group. I will
>> also post the patch there. For FriCAS list reference the original email
>> thread is here:
>>
>
> But if you come up with a solution Sage (or Ginac, or whatever) can
On 20 November 2014 01:54, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>
> What you posted looks good. But we need to test it for arg(z), re(z),
> im(z) and any other non-analytic function that we can find.
>
(1) -> re(x)==(conjugate(x)+x)/2
Type:
Void
ink?
Bill.
On 20 November 2014 09:41, Bill Page wrote:
> ...
>
> I had a thought. I suppose that all non-analytic (nonholomorphic)
functions of interest can be written in terms of conjugate and some
analytic functions, e.g.
>
> abs(x)=sqrt(x*conjugate(x))
>
> so perhaps al
Perhaps this is more or less where Richardson's theorem enters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson%27s_theorem
We badly want a reliable way to determine when an expression is
identically zero. In general this is not possible, but if we restrict
our selves to a subset of "elementary" function
On 20 November 2014 12:56, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> ...
> Can you give an example of an expression that cannot be decided by
> the Richardson's theorem?
Well, no not exactly. Richardson's theorem is not about individual
expressions, it is about decidability, i.e. computability, in general.
Conside
On 20 November 2014 22:08, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> ...
>> This problem can be reduced to finding an algorithm to determine
>> if f(x) is everywhere non-negative. Richardson proves that no such
>> algorithm exists.
>
On 21 November 2014 at 20:18, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>
> I am still confused about one thing: is this issue is already
> present in FriCAS before your changes? Because you can
> already use conjugate, sin, +, *, ..., even without defining the
> derivative for abs(x). I fail to see how defining the a
On 21 November 2014 at 20:18, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> You are right about the derivative. But my limited understanding
>> is that the strategy is not to avoid 'abs(x)' but rather to avoid 'sin'.
>
On 22 November 2014 at 12:34, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>> ...
>> FriCAS currently does not implement a symbolic 'conjugate' operator.
>> The issue concerns whether adding 'conjugate' is a good idea and
On 24 November 2014 at 17:43, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> ...
>>
>> In FriCAS 'abs' is already a kernel function and it implemented the
>> derivative of 'abs' even before my proposed patch but I think t
On 25 November 2014 at 01:11, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Bill Page
> wrote:
>> ...
>> I am not very interested in real numbers. I am interested in the
>> algebra. Would you say that
>>
>> sqrt(x^2).diff(x) = sqrt(x^2)/x
&g
On 25 November 2014 at 14:51, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bill Page
> wrote:
...
>>>> Try it this way:
>>>>
>>>> a*b = exp(?1)
>>>> a = exp(?2)
>>>> b = exp(?3)
>>>>
>>>
On 25 November 2014 at 15:14, Erik Massop wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:30:33 -0500
> Bill Page wrote:
>
>> On 25 November 2014 at 01:11, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Bill Page
>> > wrote:
> ...
>> >> But I do
On 26 November 2014 at 12:58, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Bill Page
> wrote:
>>
>> Does it help if a say the operations are defined "symbolically"?
>
> All I want is if you can give me an algorithm of your approach
> in
It seems like I am always confused when I try to use sagetrac, but I
did not expect this:
wspage@sarah ~/sage $ ./sage --dev checkout --ticket=21231
sage-run received unknown option: --dev
usage: sage [options]
Try 'sage -h' for more information.
--
What am I doing wrong?
I just did
wspage@sar
Sorry, I'm still confused. What exactly do I have to do to checkout a trac
ticket for testing and where is it documented? Google searches only seem to
mention --dev.
On Aug 13, 2016 12:19 PM, "leif" wrote:
Bill Page wrote:
> It seems like I am always confused when I try to u
isting-ticket
>
>
> -leif
>
>> In particular check out the sections on "Installing the Git-Trac
>> Command" and then "Check out an Existing Ticket"
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:55:10 PM UTC+2, Bill Page wrote:
>
OK, I thought that might be it (although all I really wanted was
read-only access), so I ran 'git trac config', see below. But it still
fails.
I guess it's just not my day ...
On 13 August 2016 at 16:13, Volker Braun wrote:
> You missed "git trac config"
>
wspage@sarah ~/sage $ git trac config
Yes indeed it does! Much appreciated.
On 13 August 2016 at 17:05, Volker Braun wrote:
> I removed the leading slash from the branch name on that ticket, works now.
>
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:22:55 PM UTC+2, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> OK, I thought that might be it (
BTW, is it normal to run 'make' after 'git trac checkout'? I just did
that and 'make' seems to be re-building almost everything.
On 13 August 2016 at 17:07, Bill Page wrote:
> Yes indeed it does! Much appreciated.
>
> On 13 August 2016 at 17:05, Volker
On Aug 14, 2016 11:26 AM, "'Martin R' via sage-devel" <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Can't we undo the ipython 5 thing? It's a major nuisance on the command
line, too.
>
+1
I find the new coloration in the Sage command line in the beta release
quite extreme and nearly unreadable in so
ease 7.3 as part of above SageManifolds ticket.
OK, it is nice to now have ExpressionNice but wouldn't it be even
nicer if it did not have such an obscure name and nicer still if it
was actually the default output format in Sage? (Of course it would be
good to still have the Pynac notation available as
On 18 August 2016 at 01:59, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-7, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>>
>> It turns out that a solution is now "hidden away" in plain sight:
>>
>> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18640
>>
>
ExpressionNice is a subclass of sage.symbolic.expression.Expression,
it seemed therefore that maybe I should be able to do something like:
sage: import sage.manifolds.utilities
sage: sage.symbolic.expression.Expression =
sage.manifolds.utilities.ExpressionNice
and expect all my expressions to be
On the contrary after reading the code for ExpressionNice carefully it
is clear that it does not do post-processing as such and should be
quite general and robust. However that said, I am very much in favor
of using the approach you demonstrated in
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21286
My main
On 19 August 2016 at 14:24, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:45:12 AM UTC-7, Bill Page wrote:
>>
>> My main question is whether we should try to replicate what is done
>> by ExpressionNice and thereby render it obsolete or should we try
>> to
ption along with several other
optional formats for the derivative.
Bill Page.
--
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+u
On 19 August 2016 at 18:30, Bill Page wrote:
> ...
> Probably the only way to make a sufficient number of people happy
> enough to get a positive review on this ticket would be to implement
> several major alternative notations for derivatives and an easy way to
> switch between
On 20 August 2016 at 08:54, Bill Page wrote:
>
> If Sage supported a standard ASCII-art 2-d output format for
> expressions, then perhaps another choice would be suitable.
>
Perhaps I should have said "unicode-art" 2-d output. I noticed that in
--notebook=jupyter Sympy do
201 - 300 of 365 matches
Mail list logo
