On Nov 17, 2007, at 7:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
> I'm pretty excited about this! I think it would be extremely
> amazingly
> useful if you could make up some more examples like this one
>
> sage: a = Slider(1,10)
> sage: plot(sin(a()*x),-3,3)
Why not just
> plot(sin(a*x),-3,3)
instead of
On Nov 18, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> #1130
>
> This seems to rely on an earlier patch. (#1120?) See comments on trac.
I'm very concerned about this patch. It is not the case that the LCM
of the orders of all elements of E(GF(q)) will equal the order of E(GF
(q)). I haven't
On Nov 18, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> On Sunday 18 November 2007, David Harvey wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>> #1130
>>>
>>> This seems to rely on an earlier patch. (#1120?) See comments on
>
On Nov 19, 2007, at 4:55 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>> I still don't believe this algorithm.
>>
>> Look at this example:
>>
>> sage: K. = GF(3^4)
>> sage: K.polynomial()
>> a^4 + 2*a^3 + 2
>> sage: E = EllipticCurve(K, [2*a^2 + 2*a + 2, 2*a^3 + 2*a + 1])
>> sage: points = E.points()
>> sage: len
On Nov 19, 2007, at 6:59 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>> Further down the road, Drew Sutherland is thinking about writing a C+
>> + library for computing things like orders, exponents, structures of
>> generic abelian groups. Basically you give it a "black box" that
>> knows how to add group elements
On Nov 19, 2007, at 10:10 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>> I think the idea is supposed to be that part of the definition of the
>> black box is that it can produce random elements, regardless of
>> whether you know the generators. So for example, suppose our group is
>> the multiplicative group of Z/
On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have a simple question: I'm trying to write a new class in a new
> file.
> How do I get that file to show up in Sage? In this case, I'm trying
> to write a menu.py file under the sage/server/notebook/widgets
> directory
Hi all,
I'd like to discuss this abelian group thing a bit further, from the
point of view of design issues rather than algorithms.
Currently in SAGE the situation appears to be the following. An
AbelianGroup represents a (not necessarily finite) abelian group
whose structure is *known*; i
On Nov 22, 2007, at 10:25 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2007 6:53 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> \> On Nov 22, 2007 9:35 AM, David Harvey
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I
Hi all,
I'd like to discuss this abelian group thing a bit further, from the
point of view of design issues rather than algorithms.
Currently in SAGE the situation appears to be the following. An
AbelianGroup represents a (not necessarily finite) abelian group
whose structure is *known*; i
On Nov 29, 2007, at 4:48 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Ok, I started fleshing out the windows port page at
>
>http://wiki.sagemath.org/windows
>
> Please add content and/or comments, we need to get this going. A data
> point: Maxima 5.13 was downloaded about 40,000 times for Windows since
> the re
On Nov 29, 2007, at 5:41 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>> So, hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to help with windows
>> development, what are my options for getting windows running on my
>> macbook?
>>
>
> With bootcamp you can install Windows in a separate partition. VMWare
> Fusion lets you virtualiz
On Dec 3, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I've just been looking at SAGE ticket number 173:
>
> http://www.sagemath.org:9002/sage_trac/ticket/173
>
> The idea is that Mathematica raises a 3 dimensional matrix M over QQ
> to the power 20,000 much faster than either SAGE or Magma.
>
> I don't
On Dec 3, 2007, at 11:20 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2007 8:13 AM, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I did try to check that Mathematica was getting the right answer, but
>> I had no luck. I don't know how to convert a mathematica matrix into
>> ordinary matrix form in SAGE, so
On Dec 4, 2007, at 5:09 AM, fwc wrote:
>>> 1) Taylor series of a rational function.
>>
>>> This works:
>>> sage: cos(x).taylor(x,0,2)
>>
>>> This doesn't:
>>> sage: x/(1+x).taylor(x,0,2)
>>
>>> This is very confusing:
>
>> This is due to the fact that '.' binds tighter than '/'. For
>> examp
Yeah, I would be much more inclined to spend hours writing doctests
if I knew there were like ten other people doing so at the same time.
david
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> some quick idea such that Sage dominates our lives even more:
>
> 1. We should
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>> If the divisor is monic, then everything is okay, but if the divisor
>> is not monic, it's not clear what the remainder should be. I took the
>> agnostic option for the moment.
>
> Why not make it agree with Magma's multivariate definition
On Dec 7, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's a couple of questions that have occurred to me as I tried to
> make
> fraction fields of mpolynomials tolerable to work with.
>
> 1) In the "reduce" method in the file fraction_field_element.py
> (line 72), we
> call quo_re
typos:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:01 PM, Timothy Clemans wrote:
> Magma. To achieve this goal in a reasonable about of time the Sage
=> "amount of time"
> the direction of William Stein, lead developer of Sage, 24 talented
> high school used Sage via the notebook in a computer lab to explore
=> "h
Hi guys,
I am writing a library for polynomial arithmetic which I might
eventually like to see included in Sage. (It is not presently part of
FLINT, but maybe one day it will be.)
I would like to release it simultaneously under GPL v2 and GPL v3. I
specifically do not want to use the claus
On Dec 17, 2007, at 6:00 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to define inverse csc, sec, and cot and their hyperbolic
> versions. I dug through
> $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage-main/build/sage/calculus/calculus.py and
> thought I
Hi Dan,
I'm not sure if the following will solve your problem,
Hi folks,
I've started working on a new C library called "zn_poly", which does
polynomial arithmetic in (Z/nZ)[x], where n fits into an unsigned
long. Similar to NTL's zz_pX class. This might eventually be part of
FLINT, but for now it's a separate project.
I am maintaining a website for z
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> I get about 7us per loop on sage.math for Pari for the exponentiation.
> So perhaps this is all architecture dependent. This would not surprise
> me in the slightest.
>
> At any rate, I suspect the algorithms used for factorisation are
> implemen
Hi paul,
is this what you wanted?
http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/report/9
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this gr
On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:47 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
> David,
>
> Did you mean to attach something to that ticket?
no... sorry I put "[with patch]" but I really meant "[solution
has been implemented]" but no-one ever writes that and I didn't want
to feel left out :-(
The point is that the
On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Yi Qiang wrote:
> I believe it is supposed to be a custom view that shows tickets you've
> reported, although it's not working for me.
Are you logged in?
(I don't suppose you're seeing tickets reported by ME? (i.e. by
dmharvey?) Did I mess up?)
david
--~--~---
On Dec 21, 2007, at 7:18 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>> But please don't forget, sage is about open source - and windows is
>> the complete opposite.
>
> [begin rant] Well, we support OSX, too, and that isn't exactly Open
> Source either. While Apple itself is somewhat more friendly to the
> Open Source
On Dec 21, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>
> On Friday 21 December 2007 08:42, David Harvey wrote:
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again: if someone can make
>> working on windows as easy and legal for me as "ssh sage.math", then
>> I
On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>> So you mean, the only way to do it is that someone buys some big
>> license from Microsoft which allows multi-user remote access? Pricing
>> is (number of users) * (price per license)?
>
> That is my impression -- I don't know if the price p
Hi Nils,
I've been looking at
http://www.sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/1482
and approximately diagnosed the problem (see comments on the ticket),
but it's not clear to me exactly how to proceed.
The new underlying gcd code produces quite inscrutable output, for
example:
sage: xgcd
When I upgrade from 2.9 to 2.9.1, the FLINT test suite is being run.
Probably it's a good idea to disable this in the release versions,
it's quite time-consuming?
Also I noticed this during the test suite (mac os 10.4.10, ppc g5):
[...]
Testing fmpz_convert()... ok
Testing fmpz_size()... ok
On Dec 24, 2007, at 7:40 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> I did find some occurrences of 63 instead of FLINT_BITS-1, but I don't
> believe this should be causing any problems with that function.
>
> Since the function doesn't say fail, I can only imagine this is an out
> of memory problem. But I don't s
When you google for "mathematica", at the top of the search results
you get this a bunch of extra links ("Students", "Mathematica Home
Page", "Demonstrations Project", etc.)
I'm not sure how this works, I guess it's some meta-data in the html
of the mathematica website. I'm sure someone on
Here are some random things, nothing terribly important.
project_summary.pdf:
* "Kazhdan-Lusztig-Vogan" should use en-dashes not hyphens (this
occurs in a few other files too I think, also Sato-Tate, etc. (but
not Swinnerton-Dyer!))
* "Much of the data that arises out of these projects will
Build successful on mac OS 10.4.10, ppc G5. Didn't run doctests due
to known issue with combinatorics stuff.
david
On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:24 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sage 10.2.alpha2 is out. The main change is the switch
> of python to ucs4. If you don't know what that is don't
> worry
(moved over from sage-support...)
On Jan 14, 2008, at 10:28 PM, David Harvey wrote:
> What would be *really* nice is if we could work directly in the
> fraction field of the quotient of R. by the
> appropriate ideal. (Does that even make sense? Is the ideal prime?) I
> tried to do t
On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:08 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> I think this computation (in the quotient ring) makes sense even if
> the ideal is not prime. I had already tried to do it that way, but
> failed.
>
> However I am not quite convinced that verifying P1+(P1+P3)==(P1+P2)+P3
> is genuinely provin
On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> What about
>
> sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 + x - (3^3-3))
> sage: E = EllipticCurve('37a'); E
> Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + y = x^3 - x over Rational Field
> sage: X = E.change_ring(K); X
> Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + y = x^3 + (-1)*x
Hi folks (especially william + robert + david roe),
I showed up for Doc Days 1 and started looking at the infinity and
extended integer ring stuff.
Question: why does the "unsigned infinity ring" not have a zero
element, whereas the "(signed) infinity ring" has a zero?
This is okay:
sage:
On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:32 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> Let A be a matrix not over ZZ or QQ:
>>
>> A.adjoint()
>> A.inverse()
>>
>> are not implemented.
>
> I don't think they should be. There are already (at least) 3 ways
> to do this:
Wait a sec I agree with David K on the adjoint i
On Jan 18, 2008, at 12:46 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> Oooh these are hard. We still haven't settled on consistent semantics
>> for the power operator. Given the types of A and B, I'm never sure
>> what to expect the type of A^B to be. For example:
>>
>> sage: type(Integer(2)^Rational(2))
>>
>>
On Jan 27, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> David's suggestion was:
> - -
> * instead of computing the whole power, just estimate the top
> couple of
> digits using MPFR (much much much faster than computing the whole
> power)
> * keep increasing precision until we ca
On Jan 27, 2008, at 10:55 PM, David Harvey wrote:
>> We actually know what the first few digits (or, actually, all of
>> them)
>> of *compare* are: 1000...
>
> Sorry, you're right, I wasn't very coherent.
>
> What I think I meant was to quickly
On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> OK, I'm quite happy with this (thanks David for suggesting it
> and Carl for telling me how to do it!)
>
> I've put this in and played around with it. It is definitely
> *much* faster for the huge examples that I tried, and it's
> also fast enou
I'm having a weird problem, I think with the test framework.
I have a clean build of 2.10.1, and clone a new branch.
In this branch, I can do ./sage -t devel/sage/sage/rings/arith.py,
and all tests pass.
Now I edit that file arith.py. At line 874, I change
sage: random_prime(10)
On Feb 10, 2008, at 9:13 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Any line with "random" anywhere in it is replaced by
>
>sage: _ = [the original line]
>
>[original output] <--- gets ignored because of the newline
>
> This is so doctests with random output can still be run using exactly
> the sa
On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
> Do others agree that cyclotomic_polynomial should be over ZZ? If so,
> I will fix it.
Absolutely.
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
On Feb 13, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
> John also needs identity and inverses, which requires passing in
> three or functions. Or, more likely a struct, which in an OO
> language, I call an object.
>
> To me, that means you're writing a special purpose "abstract group"
> wrapper fo
On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> I'm still willing to work on the "randgen" class I described toward
>> the end of this thread:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/
>> c2d86a2685018112/4b3136c4a784015a?#4b3136c4a784015a
>>
>> Basically I'm just
On Feb 21, 2008, at 1:18 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Can someone point me to the documentation for the feature where,
> for example,
>
> E.__order
>
> is translated to
>
> E._EllipticCurve_finite_field__order ?
>
> It appears that in several places where I thought I was caching data,
> I am not
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:15 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> this is 2.10.2.rc0, which hopefully will be identical to 2.10.2
> final.
> Please build and doctest this release and report any issue you
> come across. At this point only critical issues will be patched,
> i.e. doctest failures o
On Feb 22, 2008, at 8:29 AM, Michael.Abshoff wrote:
> Could you please post slightly more of the log? It looks like it
> happens
> during "make install" which would make it easy to fix. Is it
> reproducible?
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/dmharvey/install.log.gz
I am going to try buil
On Feb 22, 2008, at 2:43 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I poked around in the install log and the issue is "Resource
> temporarily unavailable", i.e. the dreaded OSX resource limits that
> are too low. A suggested fix is at
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/Tips
Thanks, well spotted!
> So: no
On Feb 22, 2008, at 3:49 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Jason Grout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I've found a nice implementation of the DLX algorithm, which
>>> "quickly" solves the NP-Complete exact cover problem. For those
On Feb 23, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> David Harvey, http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3404";>Efficient
> computation of p-adic heights (18 pages), 2007.
This will appear soon in LMS JCM.
http://www.lms.ac.uk/jcm/
> David Harvey, http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0610973";
On Feb 23, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> Currently, symbolic expressions have 3 identical "derivative"
> methods: .derivative(), .diff(), and .differentiate() (that is, they
> are aliases of each other). These have a powerful argument list;
> foo.diff(x, 3, y, z, 2) differentiates three
okay I made a list of all diff() and derivative() and
differentiate() functions that we should probably be caring about for
this issue. The list does not include aliases.
functions/elementary.py
class ElementaryFunction_class(CommutativeRingElement):
def differentiate(self,
After hearing some ideas on IRC regarding the derivatives mess, in
this email I propose a plan. It's rough around the edges. Comments
welcome.
CURRENT SITUATION
There are currently at least 18 different functions for
differentiation in Sage, attached to polynomials, power series,
symbol
On Feb 24, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Fallen Seraph wrote:
> The function I was interested in was:
>
> g(p,q) = 2*q(exp((q+p)^4)+1)+p(2*exp((q+p)^4)-1)
It's not clear to me whether the first q is supposed to be multiplied
by the following stuff, or whether q is supposed to be a *function*
being eval
Okay
So pretty much everyone seems to like the proposal, and from
discussion on IRC and sage-devel we're going to use derivative()
instead of diff(), which is fine with me.
I'm going to start coding as soon as I discuss with martin about the
have_ring parameter issues
david
On Fe
Currently in sage.rings.polynomial we have the following class
hierarchy:
Polynomial
Polynomial_dense_modn
Polynomial_dense_modn_ntl_zz
Polynomial_dense_modn_ntl_ZZ
Polynomial_dense_modp
The implementations are via some weird combination of direct NTL
access a
Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET /sage_trac/.
Reason: Error reading from remote server
?
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sag
I tried doing some integrals today and the output doesn't make much
sense to me:
sage: f = e^(-x^2)
sage: f.integrate(x, 0, 0.1)
2066*sqrt(pi)/36741
sage: f.integrate(x, 0, 1/10)
sqrt(pi)*erf(1/10)/2
H. Does this mean erf(1/10) is a rational number? That's a little
surprising to me. In f
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Andrzej Chrzęszczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: March 5, 2008 6:23:53 PM EST
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: sage-devel "exact" numerical integration
>
> Dear David
> Try
>
> sage: maxima_console()
> (%i1) integrate(%e^(-x^2),x,0,0.1);
>
On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:01 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%.
> This is one of the more
> difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose that we have a "Sage Doc
> Days" this Sunday.
> Whose interested in helping?
Sure.
david
--~--~
On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:18 AM, William Stein wrote:
> I'm trying to decide if Sage's new "mathematica manipulate" like
> functionality should
> be called "manipulate" or "interact".
[...]
> Thoughts about the above names:
>1. Mathematica calls this command "Manipulate", so if
> we call it ma
On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:53 AM, David Harvey wrote:
>> I'm trying to decide if Sage's new "mathematica manipulate" like
>> functionality should
>> be called "manipulate" or "interact".
Oh and by the way, it looks
On Mar 30, 2008, at 6:31 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> there have been a large, nebulous set of rules regarding how things
> are done in trac, patch review and merging and the Sage development
> process in general. Now I finally took the time to clear those up and
> I put a *draft* of
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Genya Zaytman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: March 31, 2008 1:15:21 PM EDT
> To: David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Fwd: Multivariate Polynomial Factoring is Broken
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Genya Zaytma
On Mar 31, 2008, at 6:09 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Relevant code:
[snip]
To profile this properly, you shouldn't do it just at powers of ten,
since the running time will depend heavily on the factorisation
pattern of n. I guess you should do some examples with lots of small
prime factor
On Mar 31, 2008, at 3:43 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> There was some discussion a week or so ago about a more efficient
> implentation of cyclotomic polynomials, which led to trac#2654. I
> have tried various alternatives of the prototype code posted there,
> finding that the speed varied enormo
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> By the way, I just did some cyclotomic polynomial benchmarking
>> in on Intel Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz laptop. Here are the results:
>>
>> n| Sage 2.11 | newcyc at #2654 | PARI | Magma
>> 10^5 | 1.29 | 0.37 | 1.24 | 0.02
>
On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:53 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 1, 10:41 am, shreevatsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Someone else was trying to do something, and I tried something and
>> got
>> a crash; mabshoff asked me to post a backtrace. (So if it is very
>> long, don't blame me ;-))
>>
>> This is p
Is the following a bug?
sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 + 1)
sage: R. = PolynomialRing(K)
sage: f = 2*y^2 + 2*z^2
sage: F = f.factor(); F
2 * (y + (-a)*z) * (y + a*z)
sage: F.unit_part()
1
Shouldn't the unit part be 2? It seems to be listing 2 as a bona fide
factor.
(This was reported by Genya Zay
e this first factor is left alone instead of being
> converted into the __unit part.
>
> John
>
> On 02/04/2008, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Is the following a bug?
>>
>> sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 + 1)
>> sage: R. = Polynomial
This example from Genya Zaytman:
sage: F1. = NumberField(x^6 + 6*x^5 + 124*x^4 + 452*x^3 + 4336*x^2
+ 8200*x + 42316)
sage: reduct_id = F1.factor_integer(47)[0][0]
sage: Rf = F1.residue_field(reduct_id) # = GF(47^3)
sage: R1. = PolynomialRing(Rf)
sage: ubar = Rf(u)
sage: I = ideal([ubar*X+Y])
On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:05 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
> I intentionally made 0.digits() return [] because that seems to me
> the most
> consistent mathematical thing to do.
+1
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegro
Hi all,
This message is for Sage developers who use the Colloquy IRC chat
client.
I have patched Colloquy so that text like "#1234" gets hyperlinked to
the sage trac server.
Here is the patch file, which should get applied to the file Panels/
JVDirectChatPanel.m in the root of the colloquy
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.o
ing
> to try to summarize the main points of the discussion, first so
> that we
> have a record of it, and also so it can continue and we can see
> what we
> can/should do about it.
>
> 1. At the moment, NumberFieldFractionalIdeal inherits from
> Ideal_generic, which David
On Apr 9, 2008, at 12:24 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> Could this be a bit more general? There are other things one wants
>> to do that are similar, such as matrix.real() and matrix.imag(), or
>> matrix.abs() for real, imaginary, and absolute values of the entries
>> respectively. It sounds
type /reload plugins or restart
> Colloquy.
>
> You can get the plugin here:
>
> http://yiqiang.org/sage-devel-trac.py
>
> Cheers,
> Yi
>
> http://yiqiang.org
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Harvey
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
&
On Apr 10, 2008, at 1:02 AM, Yi Qiang wrote:
> I debugged this some more with Craig Citro and it turns out it's a bug
> in Colloquy itself. It seems that on Leopard system it links against
> Python 2.3 by default. I've recompiled it so it links against Python
> 2.5 if it exists and falls back to
On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:35 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:40 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We should make Sage as easy or easier to install than
>> any of Mathematica, Maple, Matlab, or Magma.
>> I see no reason to compromise on this at all, since the
>> goal is to prov
On Apr 13, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Kiran Kedlaya wrote:
> Any opinions about what
>
> sage: F9. = GF(9); F81. = GF(81); F81(a)
>
> should return? There is no canonical answer, so it may be better to
> throw an exception rather than pick one of the two correct answers.
> But any of these would be bett
On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:09 PM, root wrote:
> I think you'd feel the same frustrations with Python if you compiled
> Python from scratch for every platform. You ship "sources" but assume
> that the python language exists and is compatible, which is not likely
> to be the case when 3.0 arrives. If
On Apr 23, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> 3) search for a tri- or pentanomial with some code similar to the
> one in blog
> post
You might want to check the NTL code for whether NTL "auto-detects"
that you have supplied a sparse polynomial (and hence uses faster
code for arith
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:54 PM, root wrote:
>
> Axiom's "solution" to the lattice problem is to use an interpreter
> for user interaction. Instead of just talking to a top level lisp
> command prompt, you interact with the interpreter.
>
> The interpreter looks at the arguments and classifies them
On Apr 30, 2008, at 4:50 PM, root wrote:
> But we've already had this discussion and it is clear that I'm
> completely out-in-the-weeds, talking-nonsense, and obviously have
> no idea how REAL-open-source-projects are done. So lets just leave
> it where it left off before, which is that I've sim
On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:38 PM, root wrote:
>
> David,
>
>>> But we've already had this discussion and it is clear that I'm
>>> completely out-in-the-weeds, talking-nonsense, and obviously have
>>> no idea how REAL-open-source-projects are done. So lets just leave
>>> it where it left off before, w
On Apr 30, 2008, at 7:06 PM, root wrote:
> I WANT Sage to live. I want it to succeed. I want it to be the
> lingua-franca of the business so that we can all post our results
> "in Sage" at conferences. I want to be able to "drag and drop"
> your publication onto my system and have your code "jus
Regarding ticket
http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/3045
can someone explain to me what the "gens" and "ngens" methods are
supposed to mean? There seems to be a lot of inconsistency. For example:
sage: ZZ.gens()
(1,)
These are the additive generators.
Ditto here:
sage: GF(7).gens()
(1,)
On May 1, 2008, at 2:42 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Optimistically, perhaps one indirect contribution in this
> direction is that Sage being open might make some people
> a little more aware
> of the extent to which one must never blindly trust the output of
> mathematical software. I think havi
On May 2, 2008, at 2:56 PM, mhampton wrote:
> It takes about 30 seconds on my machine to get the 10^5 Bernoulli
> number. The mathematica blog says it took a "development" version of
> mathematica 6 days to do the 10^7 calc. So it would probably take
> some work, but we are not that badly off
On May 2, 2008, at 3:40 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Also, when I tried
>
> bernoulli(10^7+2)
>
> directly in Sage there were a couple of issues that arose, since
> that command
> is much more designed for smaller input. I fixed those small issues.
> I guess we'll see in a week ..
I hope
On May 2, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I think the asymptotics aren't going to go our way if we use pari. It
> takes 11s for 10^5 and I've been sitting here for quite a few minutes
> and didn't get 10^6 yet.
So far I have on a 2.6GHz opteron:
sage: time x = bernoulli(6)
Wall time:
On May 2, 2008, at 3:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
> The complexity mostly depends on the precision one uses in
> computing a certain Euler product approximation to zeta
> and also the number of factors in the product. If you look
> at the PARI source code the comments do *not* inspire confidence
On May 2, 2008, at 4:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Funny this should come up. William just gave a take-home midterm
> in which we had to predict the runtime for various computations, so
> I wrote some generic code to help. According to my code, and some
> liberal assumptions, it shou
One more data point (2.6GHz opteron):
sage: time x = bernoulli(6)
Wall time: 3.79
sage: time x = bernoulli(12)
Wall time: 16.97
sage: time x = bernoulli(24)
Wall time: 118.24
sage: time x = bernoulli(48)
Wall time: 540.25
sage: time x = bernoulli(96)
Wall time: 2436.06
Th
On May 6, 2008, at 12:53 PM, mhampton wrote:
>
> That certainly merits a blog post somewhere - ?
>
> On May 5, 2:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> My computation of bernoulli(10^7+4) using GP version 2.3.3 has
>> completed in 217417011 miliseconds. That's about 2 days, 12
>> hours. Anybod
1 - 100 of 492 matches
Mail list logo
