r.
Anyway, thanks for making and continuing development on Sage. I
absolutely love it. I've been using it for Abstract Algebra all
semester. Perhaps I'll learn enough that I can make contributions as
well sometime.
-- Kyle
On Oct 15, 1:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Robert and Tim,
Thanks for your responses. Perhaps it is time I start reading the Sage
Developer's Guide. :)
-- Kyle
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [
evelopment environment set up,
and don't wanna do that right now.
cheers,
kyle
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 thi
how hard would it be to make this work?
W. = ZZ['w1','w2']
factor(w1*w2)
i'm using sage 2.3. if somebody could send me a code snippet,
it would be hugely appreciated.
kyle
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group,
em to work if the
base ring is a polynomial ring, that is, replacing it with its fraction
field still doesn't work. but your workaround will do for now. thanks.
kyle
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To u
ode which does expansion by
minors.)
-kyle
p.s. is there a more formal or preferred way to submit a bug report?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fo
> On 3/20/07, Kyle Schalm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> there is trouble with the determinant method on a matrix over a funky ring
>> (yes, the same funky ring causing all my other problems). in its simplest
>> form:
>>
>> In [43]: W.=QQ['w']
&g
i see why it's this way, but is it intentional (and a good
idea)?
-kyle
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 thi
>
> The definition of variables is that it returns the "list of variables
> ocuring in the poly". If that determined whether the poly
> were in 1 or 2 variables, then it would, e.g. be impossible to
> even define a constant polynomial -- since it wouldn't be
> a polynomial.
i see. makes more
pardon my ignorance, as i'm sure it's been explainedbefore, but if
i've made local changes to the sage code, what's the proper way to
upgrade? if i type "sage -upgrade", will it clobber my changes? how do i
"merge in" the new features in goi
z)/(z+1.1) # freeze!
(I-z)/(z+1.0) # ok
anyway, i'd be vey interested in a fix to this. thanks!
-kyle
p.s. i tried to get around it by writing
FractionFieldElement(z.parent(),(I-z),(z+1.8),reduce=false)
but then a different error occurred:
'PolynomialRing_field
hat is the rationale for this?
-kyle
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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-
oops, instead of
> FractionFieldElement(z.parent(),(I-z),(z+1.8),reduce=false)
i should have written
>
> FractionFieldElement(z.parent().fraction_field(),(I-z),(z+1.8),reduce=false)
because that works.
-kyle
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To pos
>
> I'm not sure what to say except:
> (1) the definition of equality in SAGE is "equal images under a
> canonical map",
hmmm. ok. if i wanted to find out the semantics of some SAGE operator,
where would i look? perusing the reference manual, i didn't see any
discussion of this. perhaps ther
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, William Stein wrote:
> What do you think of the attached? The problem was that
> gcd of numerical polynomials, via the algorithm we use, doesn't
> always converge, so polynomials couldn't be reduced to lowest
> terms. The patch changes the behavior of SAGE so fraction fields
since the default hash value
comes from the string representation.
---
below is the patch.
# HG changeset patch
# User Kyle Schalm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
# Date 1176451637 18000
# Node ID bca0cc86fd5e88dc21887c5d222c1fcfa71ae490
# Parent 76e21a785e866569cc43a15b01ee81d9dd131b43
fix bu
f not, just use the first part of this patch.
# HG changeset patch
# User Kyle Schalm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
# Date 1176453082 18000
# Node ID ce41e74d58b655aa854acba1e08a69fec9534cc6
# Parent bca0cc86fd5e88dc21887c5d222c1fcfa71ae490
guard Set_object_enumerated against accidental change
[60]: x[1]=5
>>
>> In [61]: s
>> Out[61]: {1, 3, 5}
is still highly undesirable.
shall i go ahead and add the immutable option, and some add and remove
methods?
-kyle
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i thought all these sorts of things were ironed out by now:
In [24]: z*d1
---
Traceback (most recent call
last)
/home/kyle/ in ()
/home/kyle/element.pyx in element.RingElement.__mul__()
/home/kyle
pthread -pthread -pthread
-pthread -pthread -pthread also accepts flags for thread support... yes
and so on.
any help is appreciated, as usual. thanks.
kyle
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe fr
etwork? What is the local time? Is it off by roughly 2.2E06 seconds? Make
> seems to decent recuresively beyond level 10 and that should not happend
> because there is no such deep recursion in the normal poython build.
that was it alright -- the system clock was wron
mean that arash owes you, william, an
apology, and if that is what he meant, i heartily agree.
-kyle
>
>> On 8/14/07, Arash Partow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi William,
>>>
>>> I believe you are the one that is confused about the GPL.
as long as the polynomial x^0 continues to evaluate to 1 at x=0, i'm happy
with defining 0^0 to be whatever.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In SAGE until now 0^0 gave 1 as answer. We are almost certainly going to
> change
> this to raise an ArithmeticError. Does anybo
23 matches
Mail list logo
