Hi,
I just noticed (when testing a link to sagemath.org from my webpage) the
single Cell Server:
http://sagemath.org/eval.html
so I played with it a little bit and I think this is really cool.
Here is some feedback:
* There should be more examples with interact (I would create a topic
"interac
>> * the blue line for interact (the server is computing) is not very
>> intuitive for me, it took me a while to realize
>> that this is what it means
>
>
> Originally we put it there since we can have nested interacts, and the blue
> line helps visually separate the nesting. The other day I thoug
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:56 AM, William Stein wrote:
[...]
> * Trac 9505:
>
> sage: var('x,y,z'); f=x*y*z
> (x, y, z)
> sage: f.coeff(x)
> y*z
> sage: f.coeff(x*y)
> 0
>
> This is by definition in GINAC (and Maxima), but is surprising and
> confusing, e.g., one expects to get z above, and Mathem
Hi Jeroen,
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> I have made a spkg for GCC (GNU compiler collection) version 4.6.3 with
> compilers for C, C++ and Fortran. We don't always build GCC, by default
> only on systems where this is needed or which have an old GCC version.
>
> The m
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 2:01 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:35 PM, leif wrote:
>> On 31 Mrz., 22:13, Volker Braun wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2012 7:11:23 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
>>>
>>> > therefore lack the “structural beauty” of the Mathematica® language.
>>>
>>>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-04-10 11:46, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>> What is your opinion on this thread:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/9CBKLU6LYkU/HNhJBKJ45VMJ
> What do you mean specifically? It's a long thread
Hi Thierry,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Thierry Dumont
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I juts read that Femhub (http://code.google.com/p/femhub/ and many other
> urls) uses parts of Sage. But is there any project to integrate it in the
> Sage distribution (as optional package, for example) ?
>
> This w
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:19 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Eviatar wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity: why are you forking a separate project instead
>> of developing Sage?
>
> I think the main issue is that Sage contains a lot of dependencies and
> code that are not ne
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Eviatar wrote:
> I guess by "modular" I meant that the different components can be
> installed separately, which is not really the case with Sage (except
> with the extra spkgs). I like the all-in-one approach better anyways
> but, like you said, there is also an
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 7/29/11 5:11 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'd like to announce a trial beta run of a public single cell server:
>>
>> http://sagemath.org:5467/
>>
>> The idea is that this is a single cell that can very easily be embedded
the NumPy list.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ondrej
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 8/30/12 10:10 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anyone have a SPARC 64 machine that I could have an access to, so
>> that I can t
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Hi Ondrej,
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> There are such machines on skynet, e.g. mark.
>> -bash-3.00$ uname -a
>> SunOS mark 5.10 Generic_127111-01 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-2500
>> -bash-3.00$ isainfo -b
>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Francois Bissey
wrote:
> After much time spent finding why numpy 1.6.x didn't like sage
> and some nice cooperation with numpy upstream we have an upgrade path
> for numpy. It couldn't have happened before the merging of the new
> doctest framework. Numpy 1.7.0 ex
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vincent Delecroix
>> <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> thought was that Sage is a math software, open source, with the aim of
>>> being a viable
Hi,
What is the state of the art library for factoring integers?
I was under the impression, that it is the GCM-ECM library
(http://ecm.gforge.inria.fr/).
I've been trying to use ECM and I noticed the following behavior:
sage: from sage.libs.libecm import ecmfactor
sage: N = 121
sage: factor(N)
liptic curve (see the docs). This is not going to be really useful by
> itself.
>
> sage: ecm.factor(121)
> [11, 11]
>
> Relevant discussion at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15443
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:35:46 PM UTC, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>&
Hi Volker,
I was also pointed to this thread. Aron answered pretty much
everything, so just a few comments:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> For the record, Sage build a lot slower to build if you build packages one
> after the other.
>
> So hashdist packages can sort of c
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:04:51 PM UTC+1, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>>
>> Yes. You just modify the url field to your own mirror.
>
>
> No. I know that I want to download xyz.tar.gz, and I have a list of sage
> mirrors
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Aron Ahmadia wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
>>
>> In particular its not possible to build from the already-existing git
>> repo? I don't want to have to specify the version of sage-the-library, I
>> just want to build it out of the
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 8:40:34 PM UTC+1, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>>
>> Volker, my understanding is that this would be useful for developing a
>> package, to be able to quickly
>> run a build, without committing
Hi Volker,
Thanks for considering hashdist. Few comments:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> I've spent some time looking at hashdist which is probably the closest to
> what we need, but I don't think its the way to go for us right now. First,
> Sage depends on the LD_LIBRARY
Hi,
How do I simplify the following:
sage: sqrt(3)/sqrt(15)
1/15*sqrt(15)*sqrt(3)
sage: simplify(_)
1/15*sqrt(15)*sqrt(3)
With sympy one gets:
>>> sqrt(3)/sqrt(15)
sqrt(5)/5
The reason I am asking is that we are designing a very fast core in
C++ (https://github.com/sympy/csympy) and so far we
Thanks Volker for the tip, that does the job. More comments below:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:52 PM, John Cremona wrote:
> Be careful though:
>
> sage: (sqrt(-2)*sqrt(-3)).simplify_radical()
> -sqrt(3)*sqrt(2)
>
> i.e. you cannot use sqrt(a)*sqrt(b)=sqrt(a*b) everywhere without
> reaching a contr
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Ondřej Čertík
> wrote:
>> Thanks Volker for the tip, that does the job. More comments below:
>
> Another comment. Evidently Sage uses **Maxima** for
> rational_simplify, hence the
Hi,
With Sage 6.3, I am getting:
sage: abs(x).diff(x)
x/abs(x)
sage: abs(I*x).diff(x)
-x/abs(I*x)
But abs(I*x) == abs(x). So also abs(x).diff(x) and abs(I*x).diff(x)
must be the same. But in the first case we get x/abs(x), and in the
second we got -x/abs(x).
In SymPy, the answer is:
In [1]: ab
drej
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Clemens Heuberger
wrote:
>
> possibly related to http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12588 ?
>
> Regards, CH
>
> Am 2014-11-13 um 06:19 schrieb Ondřej Čertík:
>> Hi,
>>
>> With Sage 6.3, I am getting:
>>
>> sage
Hi Bill,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> It has always seemed very inconvenient to me that "computer algebra
> programs such as Mathematica" choose to define derivative as
> complex-derivative. I believe a reasonable alternative is what is
> known as a Wirtinger derivative.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Bill Page
> wrote:
>> It has always seemed very inconvenient to me that "computer algebra
>> programs such as Mathematica" choose to define derivative as
&
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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|
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>> 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
On Nov 14, 2014 8:57 AM, "Bill Page" wrote:
>
> 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
On Nov 14, 2014 11:30 AM, "Bill Page" wrote:
>
> 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
Hi Bill,
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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 ab
> I still don't understand exactly your proposal. We've played with a
> few ideas above, in particular we have considered at least (below d/dz
> is the Wirtinger derivative, d/dx and d/d(iy) are partial derivatives
> with respect to "x" or "iy" in z=x+i*y) :
>
> 1) d/dz
> 2) d/dz + d/d conjugate(z)
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, but a chain rule needs modification
and probably some other
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:28 AM, David Roe wrote:
> 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
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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 variab
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:14 PM, 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?
>>
>> Ye
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Bill Page
> wrote:
>> On 18 November 2014 13:41, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Bill Page
>>> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Ha
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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
>>>
&g
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 Df(z) / Dz is the complex derivative taking in
>> direction theta
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:19 AM, 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)
>>
>> which is 0. So the 2nd term is 0 and the result is just the first
>> Wirtinger derivative.
>>
>> Perhaps I am mis
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> OK, this looks better!
>
> (1) -> D(abs(x),x)
>
> _
> x + x
>(1) ---
> 2abs(x)
> Type:
> Expression(Integer)
> (2) -> D(conjugate(x),y)
>
>(2) 0
>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>> OK, this looks better!
>>
>> (1) -> D(abs(x),x)
>>
>> _
>> x + x
>>(1) ---
>> 2abs(x)
>&
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
>
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> So here (20) is a simpler expression for derivative of arg:
>
> (16) -> abs(x)==sqrt(x*conjugate(x))
>Compiled code for abs has been cleared.
>Compiled code for arg has been cleared.
>1 old definition(s) deleted for function or rule a
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>> So here (20) is a simpler expression for derivative of arg:
>>
>> (16) -> abs(x)==sqrt(x*conjugate(x))
>>Compiled code for abs has been cleared.
>&g
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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 i
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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 n
I've written up all the equations from this thread together with
detailed step by step derivation:
http://www.theoretical-physics.net/dev/math/complex.html
e.g. the derivatives are here:
http://www.theoretical-physics.net/dev/math/complex.html#complex-derivatives
Most of the examples from this
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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 everywhe
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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, +, *, ...
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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.
>>>
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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 th
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, 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:
>>> ...
>>> I am not very interested in real numbers. I am interested in the
>>> algeb
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> 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)
>>>
Hi,
We test our library against Sage on Travis-CI, so we install it like this:
wget -O-
http://files.sagemath.org/linux/64bit/sage-6.9-x86_64-Linux-Ubuntu_12.04_64_bit.tar.lrz
| lrzip -dq | tar x
and lately the sage-6.9-x86_64-Linux-Ubuntu_12.04_64_bit.tar.lrz
version is not available anymore,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> We do delete old binaries to not over stay our welcome with the mirror
> admins...
>
> I restored (note gz instead of lrz)
> http://files.sagemath.org/linux/64bit/sage-6.9-x86_64-Linux-Ubuntu_12.04_64_bit.tar.gz
Yes, that's a good thing. Tha
alued functions, i.e. you can
always absorb 2*pi*i*n into log(). But sometimes it might not be
possible to completely absorb all these factors.
Now let's apply this to the problems below:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> On 26 November 2014 at 12:58, Ondřej Čertík wro
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> I thought about this a lot (essentially I studied complex analysis
> from several books as well as consulted with many colleagues) and I
> figured out some answers to my questions.
>
> In the approach (A),
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:19 PM, mmarco wrote:
>> My impression is that open sourcing SMC wouldn't have a big impact on the
>> business oportunity.
>>
>> The main niche of clients would be universities that want to move their math
>> course
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:02 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Андрей Ширшов wrote:
>> Hello!
>> There is the following example on
>> http://docs.sympy.org/latest/modules/sets.html:
>>
> from sympy import FiniteSet, EmptySet
> A = EmptySet()
> A.powerset()
>>
Hi,
I was wondering what the fastest way is to do this benchmark in Sage:
┌┐
│ Sage Version 6.4, Release Date: 2014-11-14 │
│ Enhanced for SageMathCloud.│
└─
Hi Vincent,
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your example can be reduced to polynomials
>
> sage: K. = QuadraticField(3)
> sage: R. = K[]
> sage: timeit("(a1+a2+a3+a4+sqrt3*a5)^25")
> 5 loops, best of 3: 81 ms per loop
That's cool, I wasn't a
Hi Vincent,
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-01-18 18:03 UTC+01:00, Ondřej Čertík :
>> Can you invent an example, that can't be converted to polynomials?
>> Perhaps (a1+a2+a3+sqrt(5)*a4+sqrt(3)*a5
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Vincent Delecroix
> <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2015-01-18 18:03 UTC+01:00, Ondřej Čertík :
>>> Can you invent an ex
Hi Vincent,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Ondrej,
>
> For such questions of Sage usage, it is better to discuss on
> ask.sagemath.org or sage-support.
>
> You can also deal with all algebraic numbers at once with QQbar
>
> sage: sqrt
Hi Miguel,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:03 PM, mmarco wrote:
> It is much faster to work with absolute fields instead of towers of
> extensions:
>
> sage: K.=QuadraticField(3)
> sage: F.=K.extension(x^2-5)
> sage: R. = F[]
> sage: %time _=(a1+a2+a3+sqrt5*a4+sqrt3*a5)^25
> CPU times: user 27.4 s, sys
Hi,
We just released SymEngine 0.1.0:
https://github.com/sympy/symengine/releases/tag/v0.1.0
SymEngine (https://github.com/sympy/symengine) is a standalone fast
C++ symbolic manipulation library. Optional thin wrappers allow usage
of the library from other languages, we currently have C, Python,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 7:44 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
>> [Top-posted to stop threadjacking the SymEngine post]
>
> I'm sorry for doing that -- it was sort of relevant to his question,
> but starting a new thread is much better.
>
>>
>> Just h
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 7:44 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
>>> [Top-posted to stop threadjacking the SymEngine post]
>>
>> I'm sorry for doing tha
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 8:08 PM, François Bissey
wrote:
> On 08/17/15 09:46, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>> And my next question is what should we do currently to make it easy
>> for Sage users to install SymEngine. Should we continue using the spkg
>> to install the C++ depen
73 matches
Mail list logo
