Re: [sage-devel] An xgcd2 algorithm

Sounds like a good suggestion. Do you want to create a trac account so that you can create the ticket? David On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 9:24 AM, François Colas wrote: > Hello group, > > I realised that extended GCD for several integers is not implemented in > Sage (i.e. xgcd2([a1, ..., an])) > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Directions for idioms of free objects and free abelian groups

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Simon King wrote: > Hi Travis, > > On 2014-04-20, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > > Hey Simon, > >I believe John was referring to the catalog of groups (which I forgot > > about, thanks!) and proposing a similar catalog for algebras (which I > > support). > > Exac

Re: [sage-devel] RAM to build Sage

> Anyway, there are certainly (a lot of?) doctests that take quite some time, > but don't use extraordinarily much memory, so I think John's idea isn't that > bad. +1 > -leif > > >> >> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 11:26:47 AM UTC+2, John Cremona wrote: >>> >>> If these tests are known, they could perh

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in integer factorization (or primality test)

We are using flint: if mpz_fits_slong_p(n.value): n_factor(&f, mpz_get_ui(n.value), proof) where n_factor is defined in sage.libs.flint.ulong_extras. David On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:28 AM, John Cremona wrote: > I noticed an announcement on the flint-dev list which led me to try

Re: [sage-devel] NumberField comparison?!?

> > > > Surely there is a good reason for that behavior? > > I see at least two reasons: > - it is not that easy to provide a efficient algorithm for comparisons > - the comparisons depend on the embedding, which might be in RR, CC > or an extension of Qp. I do not see how we can have a generic >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: NumberField comparison?!?

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Samuel Lelievre wrote: > There is a workaround which is to use > > (a-b).is_real_positive() > > The comparison should be fixed to use that. > I disagree, since this approach will yield a < b and b < a both False most of the time. Moreover, it will only work

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Bill Page wrote: > 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 oth

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Bill Page wrote: > 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 >>> > reduce

Re: [sage-devel] Better tracebacks (#71)

I don't see any big problems with the overall approach at first glance. And the result is great! David On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > Hello, > > I have a working proof-of-concept to improve tracebacks for preparsed code > and for Cython code. On http://trac.sagemath.or

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Documentation links

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Harald Schilly wrote: > > > On Monday, November 24, 2014 10:22:24 AM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> In fact, I think the translations should be mentioned also on >> http://www.sagemath.org/doc/index.html. > > > I agree that external links to dead pages should g

Re: [sage-devel] Cygwin(64) port status

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > Hi all, > > With http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15649 and > http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17365 which need reviews and touch > Cygwin-only code we'll (almost) have support to build Sage trivially (type > "make") on Cygwin (again) and C

Re: [sage-devel] When/by who/how was the "code of conduct" initiated ?

I think that most people are ignoring the question because they don't know the answer. The only person who can say for sure would be Volker, and I don't know why he hasn't responded. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just Volker, not a larger group of people. I don't think there's a

Re: [sage-devel] When/by who/how was the "code of conduct" initiated ?

d fiat David > > John > > > On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 7:14:21 PM UTC-8, David Roe wrote: >> >> I think that most people are ignoring the question because they don't >> know the answer. The only person who can say for sure would be >> Volker, a

Re: [sage-devel] abs(matrix)

> abs(matrix) is currently returning the determinant (and this goes back > to the early implementation in 2006!). If anybody contests the fact > that it should return the matrix whose entries are the absolute value > of the initial matrix, please tell me. I don't think that it should be the matrix

Re: [sage-devel] Re: abs(matrix)

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > 2014-12-04 9:54 UTC+01:00, Simon King : > (posted on sage-support) >> Hi Vincent, >> >> On 2014-12-04, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> sage: M = matrix(RR, [[-1]]) >>> sage:

Re: [sage-devel] abs(matrix)

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-12-04 9:32 UTC+01:00, David Roe : >>> abs(matrix) is currently returning the determinant (and this goes back >>> to the early implementation in 2006!). If anybody contests the fac

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

Preprints won't have MR numbers. I also find MR numbers less readable. We could just append letters ("a" then "b," etc) if there are collisions. David On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:38 AM, 'Martin R' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Why not use the MR number as reference format

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Finite fields coercion bug

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:16 PM, John Cremona wrote: > Thanks Peter for the explanation. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that the > normal user could have guess that one only gets the clever stuff > (compatible embeddings into the algebraci closure. The docstring GF? > does imply this but again does

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Finite fields coercion bug

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi David, > > First, thank you for technical explanations. They are compelling. > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 9:59:50 PM UTC+2, David Roe wrote: >> >> >> In order to create finite fields with arbitrary

Re: [sage-devel] vote on behaviour of is_similar for matrices

Agreed: AA. On Oct 27, 2016 04:53, "Vincent Delecroix" <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > me too: AA > > -- > 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 sa

Re: [sage-devel] Re: run doctests of a single function

It's certainly doable, though an initial attempt needs a bit more work (I have to go teach now, so taking a break). What scope do we want to support? Running doctests on an object that has a __doc__ attribute is certainly possible, though getting line numbers to match what's expected will take so

[sage-devel] Checking out old branches

If I checkout an old branch (say, from one or two versions of Sage ago), it essentially forces a rebuild of all of Sage, even if I think better of it and checkout develop immediately. The rebuild is a consequence of the fact that Cython builds based on timestamp and all of the files have been touc

[sage-devel] Re: Checking out old branches

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 8:12:32 AM UTC+1, David Roe wrote: >> >> Create a new git trac subcommand to replace `git trac checkout 1234`, say >> `git trac old 1234`. This would fetch the branch, check it out

[sage-devel] Re: Checking out old branches

is clone go? Ask the user when they first call it? David > > > > > On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 9:40:15 AM UTC+1, David Roe wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Volker Braun wrote: >> >>> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 8:

Re: [sage-devel] Checking out old branches

I mean that even if I checkout develop again before building Sage, it still takes a long time. David On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2016-11-18 08:12, David Roe wrote: > >> If I checkout an old branch (say, from one or two versions of Sage ago), >&

Re: [sage-devel] Checking out old branches

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2016-11-19 11:23, David Roe wrote: > >> I mean that even if I checkout develop again before building Sage, it >> still takes a long time. >> > > You mean something like > > - checkout old branch (

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Recurrences and Sequence Formula Guessing Functions in Sage

Another thing that might be nice to tie in is the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Or at least include a link in the documentation, though most people looking to guess a sequence will already be aware of OEIS. David On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Fredrik Johansson < fredrik.johans...@g

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Recurrences and Sequence Formula Guessing Functions in Sage

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Thierry wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 02:31:42PM -0500, David Roe wrote: > > Another thing that might be nice to tie in is the Online Encyclopedia of > > Integer Sequences. Or at least include a link in the documentation, > though > >

Re: [sage-devel] Checking out old branches

at merging develop can screw up the git log but I haven't followed the details. If this approach is problematic for some reason, please let me know. David On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 2:12 PM, David Roe wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Jeroen Demeyer > wrote: > >

Re: [sage-devel] Checking out old branches

ion is that the feature branch is > first, and you merge in dependencies. > > > > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 2:31:57 AM UTC+1, David Roe wrote: >> >> I've implemented a new git-trac command at https://github.com/sagemath/gi >> t-trac-command/pull/2

Re: [sage-devel] Updates or hints on "latex Function Prevent Simplification"?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Qian Hong wrote: > hi folks, > > I posted this question in irc but no reply, so I re-post here, also > for better archive. Sorry for duplicating! > (BTW, http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/keshav/irclogs/ doesn't > work, anyone have a look?) > No problem; IRC

Re: [sage-devel] Updates or hints on "latex Function Prevent Simplification"?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Qian Hong wrote: > Thanks David, > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:02 AM, David Roe wrote: > > The issue is with the simplification of the expression, rather than the > > latex function. The following currently works: > > > > sage:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Python3-compatible syntax

There's a python3 compatibility trac plugin; presumably reviewers should just pay attention to that? For example, see the list on the right at https://patchbot.sagemath.org/ticket/21996/ David On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, Sébastien Labbé wrote: >

Re: [sage-devel] group algebra modules

I'm interested in helping out with this project. Julian Rüth, Xavier Caruso and I are working on p-adics on the Sage IRC channel ( http://www.sagemath.org/help-irc.html) at 4pm EST (10pm CET) today. If you want to log in and chat about character lattices for a bit I'd be happy to share ideas. I'

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Error in compiling Sage in Ubunt 16.04u from source

Either add a symlink from somewhere in your path (e.g. /usr/local/sage -> /path/to/sage-install/sage) or add /path/to/sage-install to your $PATH. David On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Fjordforsk A/S wrote: > Sage doesnt run except in the installation directory as ./sage . How can I > add a link

Re: [sage-devel] releasing memory in compiled components

Python has a __dealloc__ method, which is called when the object is garbage collected. You can find examples by search_src. On Jan 9, 2017 09:52, "John Cremona" wrote: > In a reply to question 36225 at > https://ask.sagemath.org/question/36225/memory-leak-with-modular-symbols/ > (my reply was de

Re: [sage-devel] Re: releasing memory in compiled components

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 7:03:57 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: >> >> On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 4:45:19 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >>> >>> You can just use the Python "del" operator and Cython should translate >>> it t

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

I don't think anyone's arguing that a changelog is a bad idea. The question is just whether it's easier to make from fragments in the repository or from a new field on trac. Personally I think trac, though being able to edit fragments from previous tickets is appealing. Either way, there should be

Re: [sage-devel] Python3?

I haven't been working on it, but relevant metatickets: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15530 https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15980 https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16052 I will defer to people who have been actively working on it, but my impression is that there has been a great deal of progres

Re: [sage-devel] how to check zip, map, range, print for Python3

Don't you just need to add from six.moves import zip at the top of every file where zip is used? David On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: > Hello, > > your help is required for some Python3-related question, please. > > I would like to have a branch which activates the fut

Re: [sage-devel] how to check zip, map, range, print for Python3

When we import code from those Python files, the evaluation is done within the context of that file and the local imports there. zip is a built in function, so you need to replace it in the local namespace David > > Frederic > > Le jeudi 26 janvier 2017 21:30:08 UTC+1, David Roe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: how to check zip, map, range, print for Python3

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Nils Bruin wrote: > On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 12:02:07 PM UTC-8, Frédéric Chapoton > wrote: >> >> >> Please, tell me how to change the zip behaviour in the code. Or just >> change the branch if you know how. >> >> If I understand correctly, part of your qu

Re: [sage-devel] Names of special methods like _pari_

I don't see the benefits of changing as sufficient to outweigh the costs of an incompatible change, so I would vote for (1). Among the other options, (4) seems the most reasonable. David On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 4:41:40 PM U

Re: [sage-devel] build fails 'Cannot allocate memory'

I'm not sure how too help get the documentation to build, but sage itself may be functional (documentation is the last step of the build process). Try starting Sage and see if it works. David On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > >

Re: [sage-devel] Is anybody using set_coercion_model()?

I was one of the original authors, and removing the possibility of additional models sounds fine to me. I agree that nobody's going to implement them at this point. David On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:26 AM, John Cremona wrote: > On 14 March 2017 at 12:10, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > The coercion mod

Re: [sage-devel] Reviewing tickets with dependencies

I agree that setting a ticket to positive review when its dependencies aren't yet reviewed is okay. Michael's warning should be kept in mind, but for some tickets it's not a huge worry. David On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/15/2017 08:18 AM, Simon King wrote: >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Names of special methods like _pari_

I'm also willing to change my mind, since I don't feel that strongly, and a number of people in favor of __pari__ seem to care a lot. There is still a nonzero cost to deprecation, since people will have to change their code to update to the new convention. But I don't think there are that many us

[sage-devel] Sage Days 87: p-adics and the LMFDB

at https://goo.gl/forms/Vyr18z8BhWPVQpUP2 by April 28, 2017. More details are available at wiki.sagemath.org/days87. Sincerely, Jennifer Balakrishnan Xavier Caruso Edgar Costa Taylor Dupuy David Roe William Stein Christelle Vincent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: [sage-devel] Warning, slow doctest vs. # long time

Sure, but it will take some changes to the parser. Currently the #long tag only affects whether the test is added to the list of tests to be run. Once that has been decided, the fact that a test was marked with #long is currently not stored anywhere. The place you'll need to change is line 566 of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RR, coercion of numpy.float32() and clang - coercion experts needed

Quick guess (don't have time to look at this soon): the issue could be in the action discovery code, which may try creating elements of numpy.float32 using weird inputs. This could cause a difference between right and left multiplication. One way to check if this is the source is to try converting

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RR, coercion of numpy.float32() and clang - coercion experts needed

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 3:46:03 PM UTC+1, David Roe wrote: >> >> Quick guess (don't have time to look at this soon): the issue could be in >> the action discovery code, which may try creating el

[sage-devel] Re: Sage Days 87: p-adics and the LMFDB

Just a reminder: if you would like to apply for funding to attend this Sage Days, the deadline is tomorrow. David On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:32 AM, David Roe wrote: > Please feel free to forward to people who may be interested. > > Sage Days 87 > Burlington, Vermont > July 17-22

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Timeout for doctests.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:35 AM, mforets wrote: > Hi, > i wanted to know if there is a keyword that can be put next to a doctest > to measure performance with respect to computation time, like: > > sage: possibly_long_calculation(..) # timeout 600s > 0 > > this is seems item 1) in this thread's O

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Timeout for doctests.

timeouts. We'd have to add more infrastructure to allow for timeouts on individual tests. For the current code that handles timeouts, see sage.doctest.forker.DocTestDispatcher.parallel_dispatch at line 1423. Individual tests are fun lower down in that file, at line 2131. David > >

Re: [sage-devel] Sequence universe

This is now https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23371. Thanks for the report! David On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Mathis CARISTAN wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed a behaviour of Sequences that seems wrong to me. If I have a > Sequence with a given universe, I can add elements that are not included in

Re: [sage-devel] Error installing package linbox-1.4.2

768MB of RAM is probably not enough to build Sage. Can you use a binary? David On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Jose Luis Bracamonte Amavizca < luis...@gmail.com> wrote: > The VPS have 1 Core 768MB RAM 60GB Disk. It has not any other process > running, it is a clean installation with no one ot

[sage-devel] Zulip

Hi everyone, I've set up a server running Zulip for realtime collaboration on Sage. You can try it out at zulip.sagemath.org. More details below *Zulip* Zulip is an open source group chat program (see their website and chat room ). Zulip is organ

Re: [sage-devel] Sorting strings and integers

This does seem to be new. In Sage 7.2 (just one that I had handy), sage: sorted([1,2,'a']) [1, 2, 'a'] sage: sorted([1r,2r,'a']) [1, 2, 'a'] This isn't that surprising, since the semantics of comparison have been changing because of the upcoming switch to python 3. But I think that Sage integers

Re: [sage-devel] Sorting strings and integers

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com > wrote: > On 07/08/2017 19:47, David Roe wrote:> But I think that Sage > >> integers should compare the same as python ints >> > I agree and with Python 3 you get an error > > $ py

Re: [sage-devel] Sorting strings and integers

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com > wrote: > On 07/08/2017 22:53, David Roe wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Vincent Delecroix < >> 20100.delecr...@gmail.com >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >&g

Re: [sage-devel] Sorting strings and integers

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com > wrote: > On 07/08/2017 23:11, David Roe wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Vincent Delecroix < >> 20100.delecr...@gmail.com >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >&

Re: [sage-devel] Zulip

;s now focusing a lot of effort on Zulip. > > -- William > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 9:44 AM David Roe wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> I've set up a server running Zulip for realtime collaboration on Sage. >> You can try it out at zulip.sagemath.org. More details be

Re: [sage-devel] Zulip

think a lot of the modes of interaction are more general to an open-source project and could carry over to Sage. David P.S. The meeting today went well; I think the participants saw the value in being able to keep multiple simultaneous conversations both interleaved and separable. > John &g

Re: [sage-devel] Re: SIGSEGV in Maxima

Note that this is changed in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23592 David On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Ralf Stephan wrote: > No, from testing it appears equality proofs are needed by 10 doctests > in src/sage/manifolds/differentiable/metric.py > so my idea does not work. > > -- > You receive

Re: [sage-devel] Sage in Mac OSX 11.11 (El Capitan)

My impression is that it's a new security feature for 10.11, preventing any programs (even ones that have root privileges) from writing to certain system folders. So as long as you don't run into any such malware, disabling rootless should have no effect on you. :-) David On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Parallel computing

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: > Just a stupid side-question: > > On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Victor Shoup wrote: > > Also, now that NTL is threadsafe, I'm looking at making some of the >> low-level routines thread enhanced. >> > > For up to 4 threads, I get close to linear speedup

Re: [sage-devel] el capitan statement

Do you want to mention the possibility of disabling system integrity protection, or are you purposefully avoiding that option? David On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:38 PM, William Stein wrote: > Hi, > > We need to post a statement on the Sagemath.org website about the El > Capitan os x 10.11 situation

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

tection may allow you to build Sage, but it also disables a security feature of your operating system. David On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:52 PM, William Stein wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, David Roe wrote: > >> Do you want to mention the possibility of disabling sy

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2015-10-07 19:31, David Roe wrote: > >> In OS X 10.11, Apple changed the operating system to no longer allow >> modification of certain system folders, even when logged in as root. >> > > Why would Sage need mod

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 11:00:14 UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> On 2015-10-07 19:31, David Roe wrote: >> > In OS X 10.11, Apple changed the operating system to no longer allow >> > modification of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Methods for polyhedron are ring dependant?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:27:44 AM UTC+2, jplab wrote: >> >> -it would be a good idea to warn the user if some results may be wrong >> due to the used ring. Perhaps this deserves a ticket on its own. >> > > I think thats a bit silly

Re: [sage-devel] bug in cuspidal subspace of ModularSymbols with character over p-adic field

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

Re: [sage-devel] should "foo?" print TESTS: blocks or omit them?

> > [ X] 'foo?' should NOT display TESTS blocks. > -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group,

Re: [sage-devel] What should be the include_dirs for a cython file using sig_check() outside of the sage library?

> > In any case, it's only a warning. The Sage library has the same problem > > but we compile with -w to ignore warnings. > > Ok I see. So the -w is an option to which command exactly? Not the same as > the one I use I guess (installing an spkg with sage -p). > It's a flag for gcc. David -- You

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Manifold equality and UniqueRepresentation

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > Hey Simon, > > >> >I would then be advocating for using UniqueRepresentation if that >> was >> >> > the only issue. >> >> >> >> It really depends whether in comparing manifolds you would prefer to >> do >> >> *some* >> >> heuristics to

Re: [sage-devel] Exceptions format; keyword 'implementation'

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote: > We should follow Python; this has an added benefit of typically keeping >> error messages more concise. >> > > One very common occurrence of a long exception message are the > PackageNotFoundError which happen when one calls a function which

Re: [sage-devel] Exception with parameters

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Daniel Krenn wrote: > On 2015-11-12 08:45, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: > > LatticePoset({'a':['b', 'c'], 'b':['d', 'e'], 'c':['d', 'e'], > > 'd':['f'], 'e':['f']}) > > > > returns "ValueError: Not a lattice." I would like to see for example > > "Not a lattice: no meet f

Re: [sage-devel] Exception with parameters

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, Daniel Krenn wrote: > > True. Does this mean that you want to use x and y in the calling >> function (e.g. catch the exception there and raise a different exception >> explaining what is going on using x and y)? >> > > Ex

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Do we really need Element, RingElement, AdditiveGroupElement, ...?

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > Hi, > > Le lundi 23 novembre 2015 10:55:40 UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit : >> >> Of course, you could argue that Element >> should not have __add__ and __mul__ (since not all elements can be added >> or multiplied). But it doesn't really

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Inverting Integers gives different behaviour than in Python

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:43:29 PM UTC+1, John Cremona wrote: >> >> Of course it does but no mathematician would ever write that in notation >> as ~x. >> > > Its still a minor optimization (avoids coercion in 1/x), so I'm not so > sur

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Jupyter notebook by default?

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 7:01 AM, kcrisman wrote: > > > And we are not removing it for all the legacy reasons that you listed. >> This thread is about what format new notebooks are supposed to be. Anybody >> who prefers SageNB can still use SageNB >> >> > But how easy will that be? It already soun

Re: [sage-devel] New RC 4c-pvp, 4f-php, A-PVP 4-CMC, 3-CMC, dibutylone,4mmc, Mdpv, Mdma,a-pvp, Mephedrone Skype: drksmithn

Sorry, everyone. The message has been deleted (though not from your inboxes), and the sender doesn't have permission to post again. David On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:11 PM, skype: wrote: > Buy Good Samples of MDMA - BK-MDMA, METHYLONE , BUTYLONE , HEROINE , > COCAINE, POWDER , KITAMINE ,MDPV, APVP

Re: [sage-devel] Finite State Machine Improvements

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Marco Cognetta wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to implement some of the closure operations that are missing > from the finite state machine code. Since there are several that are not > implemented (intersection, difference, reversal, homomorphism, and inverse > homo

Re: [sage-devel] Updating Sagemath's README on Github [help] [newbie]

nk :) > I requested a trac account but haven't yet received any confirmation > e-mail. Should I fire up a pull request ? > If yes, to which branch - master or develop? > If no, I'll open a ticket as you instruct and wait for your as well as > fellow developers' suggestio

Re: [sage-devel] vote for making nauty a standard package (Re: About license of nauty and poset generator)

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Here is a ticket with the new nauty release, and a proposal to make it a > standard package. > http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19919 > > Please vote (it is already an optional package for long time, I think), > and there are no more formal

Re: [sage-devel] GF(16,'x') when we do not care about the 'x'

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Nils Bruin wrote: > On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:22:54 PM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> to me, two fields that are specified by the same irreducible polynomial >> over the same prime subfield ought to be identical. >> it'd be much better design, no

Re: [sage-devel] 0^0 in unramified extensions of Zp

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:15 AM, srozensz wrote: > sage: A. = Zq(4) > sage: A(0)^0 > O(2^0) Thanks. This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19943 David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and s

Re: [sage-devel] Re: The sage.rings.finite_rings.constructor module

I raised some objections on the ticket. David On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote: > The 'constructor' file is being renamed to 'finite_field_constructor' > in the following ticket: > > http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19941 > > Nathann > > On 22 January 2016 at 12:13, Nathan

[sage-devel] Merging sage-7.0 into existing branch

I'm trying to merge sage-7.0 into http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/812. I've built a fresh sage-7.0 on SMC then did the following (after a bit of fiddling around with other tickets) git trac checkout 812 git merge master make It ends up with an error that looks like Building interpreters for fast_

[sage-devel] Re: Merging sage-7.0 into existing branch

Good idea, but it doesn't fix the problem. I'm still getting the same result. David On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > DId you try ``make distclean && make``? > > Best, > Travis > > > > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 3:34:56 P

Re: [sage-devel] Merging sage-7.0 into existing branch

Thanks; that worked. David On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2016-01-23 22:34, David Roe wrote: > >> python -u setup.py install >> >> Traceback (most recent call last): >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Matrix unicode output

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Samuel Lelievre wrote: > When starting the Sage REPL, we currently display the following advice: > > Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface. > Type "help()" for help. > > We could add a few more hints that answer frequently asked questi

Re: [sage-devel] is_prime failing silently

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hello, > > Indeed, the definition given in the documentation of "is_prime" does not > coincide with what the method is doing. > > The mathematical definition of prime *depends* on the ring. An element of > a ri

Re: [sage-nt] Re: [sage-devel] How are number field elements sorted?

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 11:19 AM, John Cremona wrote: > Thanks for the replies and suggestions. I am not sure what is the > best thing to do. I can see three different needs here: > > (1) Any deterministic total order for python sorting to be possible > and consistent. For example, a function w

Re: [sage-devel] is_prime failing silently

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 7:54:03 AM UTC-6, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> On 2016-02-07 14:50, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: >> > So then what do you think about the current behavior, where if there >> > is no (implemented) is_prime(), we

Re: [sage-devel] Coverage and shared doctests...

One option would be to use underscore methods to make the coverage script happy. I'm not sure if you'd be able to solve all of your problem like this though. You might also look into generalizing the 32-bit and 64-bit flags in sage/doctest/sources.py (search for "bit") to incorporate different do

Re: [sage-devel] Coverage and shared doctests...

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Florent Hivert wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:07:06PM -0500, David Roe wrote: > > One option would be to use underscore methods to make the coverage script > > happy. > > ??? Do you mean that underscore method don't need to be test

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Bye

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:28 PM, kcrisman wrote: > I'm not part of this community, yet, may be never, but from my perspective >> You are welcome "back" any time. >> > > +1 > > Though in open source development (at least in open development projects > like this one) meaning that sometimes people w

Re: [sage-devel] Vote for making "meataxe" optional

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:11 AM, mmarco wrote: > I definitely vote for making it optional, and try to make it standard soon. > Agreed. I'm also interested in the modular representation part of meataxe. Is that functionality exposed in the current package or will that require more Cython wrappe

Re: [sage-devel] quotient rings, mpolynomial rings, and monomial_divides

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Ben Hutz wrote: > I was exploring some quotient ring operations and came across the > following: > > {{{ > R.=QQ[] > K.=NumberField(y^3 + 2*y - 2401) > k.=K.quo(K.prime_factors(7)[1]) > R.=PolynomialRing(k) > R.monomial_divides(y,x^3*y) > Error > }}} > > {{{ > R.=

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >