7;x,y']
sage: f=x+y
sage: numerator(f)
---
AttributeErrorTraceback (most recent call
last)
/home/luisfe/.sage/temp/mychabol/5681/
_home_luisfe__sage_init_sage_0.py in
()
/opt/SAGE/sage/local/lib
the logic behind this, there are further
problems (maybe another track)
{{{
sage: N.=NumberField(x**2-5/2)
sage: denominator(1/a)
5
sage: numerator(1/a)
-------
AttributeErrorTraceback (most recent call
last)
/home/luisfe/.sage/temp/mychabol/4554/
_home_
I have been recently working with univariate polynomials over number
fields and find the gcd very slow. At least for absolute number fields
Sage should behave better.
for QQ[x], gcd is also slow right now, but this is being addressed in
#4000
The issue is that for univariates polynomials over abs
---
PariError Traceback (most recent call
last)
/home/luisfe/ in ()
/opt/SAGE/sage/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/libs/pari/gen.so
in sage.libs.pari.gen.PariInstance.__call__ (sage/libs/pari/gen.c:
38930)()
/opt/SAGE/sage/local/lib/
On 17 mar, 10:13, John Cremona wrote:
> For an example of how polynomials over number fields are converted
> into pari polynomials, see
> sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element.pyx, in the factor function.
> This is the code already used to factor polynomials over number fields
> by converting
> sage: f1 = pari([i._pari_('y') for i in f.list()]).Pol()
well, this is use Polrev()
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://grou
I think that this is a problem inherent to the way that sage
communicates to maxima. And would be difficult to correct unless every
symbolic variable/function has a different maxima, pari etc. name that
does not cause this problem.
For example I would not like the following to be supported
sage:
Could not you use another way to use these subscripts. The following
may be ugly, but works
sage: n=var('n__0_3__0_1')
sage: maxima(n+1)
n__0_3__0_1+1
On 26 abr, 17:48, Ryan Hinton wrote:
> I'm using variable names with non-alphanumeric characters for
> convenience. (Longer story: I have varia
>
> Approximate GCD? That's a curious concept. What is it used for? I
> can't imagine defining a GCD in this context as divisibility is an
> exact phenomenon.
For example, in an inverse parametrization problem. Suppose that you
have a rational curve given by a parametrization with float
cofficien
Hi,
I have found an unhandled SIGFPE in number_field_element_quadratic as
explained in ticket http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9357
Basically, sage does not check if a quadratic algebraic number is zero
when trying to invert it.
I added a trivial patch that checks if the zero element is
I have added a new ticket for adding a default gcd and lcm for field
elements.
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9819
For the case of field elements gcd and lcm methods are not of great
interest. However, they can be addecuated for some reasons.
- Some algorithms may accept as input eith
On Aug 28, 1:21 pm, Sebastian Pancratz wrote:
> On Aug 27, 1:00 pm, luisfe wrote:
>
> > I have added a new ticket for adding a default gcd and lcm for field
> > elements.
>
> >http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9819
>
> > For the case of field ele
Another issue,
Assuming that we allow a fallback implementation of gcd/lcm for field
elements.
Do we want such gcd/lcm if the field is non-exact?
FractionField(RR[x]) and so on.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
On Sep 1, 5:27 pm, Sebastian Pancratz wrote:
> I don't think this change in code should be used as a band-aid to make
> things work in one of the trac tickets you mentioned earlier.
For the problem that raised all the stuff up I have an alternative
solution (with pros and cons of course)
> On
Debian 64-bit on an intel core-duo
compiles without problems and passes all doctests. The test wheree
made with only two threads.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For m
Hi,
I have recently upgraded my "stable" version of sage to 4.5.3 from
4.51 using
"sage -upgrade"
I upgraded sage with a user called "Alice" having write and read
access to the sources.
I have another user "Bob" that can only read the sources and run sage.
But Bob has no write permissions.
Afte
Hi,
I have recently upgraded my "stable" version of sage to 4.5.3 from
4.51 using
"sage -upgrade"
I upgraded sage with a user called "Alice" having write and read
access to the sources.
I have another user "Bob" that can only read the sources and run sage.
But Bob has no write permissions.
Afte
There is a related bug in trac
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5155
I have posted there quepcad failures
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, v
On Sep 22, 12:28 am, Mitesh Patel wrote:
> On 09/21/2010 07:57 AM, luisfe wrote:
> Could you give the output of the qepcad.py test?
There is a related bug in trac:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5155
I have posted there quepcad failures
--
To post to this group, send an em
On Oct 27, 8:36 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> I've created an updated readline package to attempt to get a better solution
> (less of a hack), to the issues on openSUSE 11.2, 11.3 and Arch Linux.
>
> http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/readline-6.1.spkg
>
> Parallel builds are
On Oct 28, 11:57 am, DuleOrlovic wrote:
> I forget to add few more equations to system ie. {x^4-x,y^4-y,z^4-z}
> in reason to have solution in GF(4) and zero dimensional ideal, so I
> answered my question.
> But, I have another issue.
> When I use quotient ring Q, J.groebner_basis() does not retur
On Oct 28, 5:25 pm, Roman Pearce wrote:
> On Oct 28, 4:20 am, luisfe wrote:
>
> > Computing with generic quotient rings I am afraid that will be slow
> > and that will yield to various errors. Specially as in this case,
> > where the ideal is not prime (you are looki
Hi,
I am trying to write a procedure for univariate and multivariate
polynomial rings that computes the Sylvester matrix of two
polynomials. But I have a problem with corner cases.
I am not sure what the method should resurn in the cases
poly1, poly2 = 0, 1
poly1, poly2 = 1, 0
poly1, poly2 = 0,
On Nov 11, 6:52 pm, Tom Boothby wrote:
> The empty matrix is NOT the Sylvester matrix of (0,0), (0,1) or (1,0).
>
> The degree of the zero polynomial is usually taken to be -infinity,
> though Sage uses -1 for some reason. In either case, the Sylvester
> matrix needs to have negative dimensions
On Nov 12, 9:17 am, Eviatar wrote:
> Gah, it won't let me post links. Here it is in binary:
>
> 0110111101000111010001110011101000100010011010010110110101100111001100010011001100110010001011100110100101101101011101100111011001010111001101101111011000110110101100101110
On Nov 11, 8:54 pm, Tom Boothby wrote:
> > However I disagree a little here about the degree of zero polynomial.
> > I would expect SylvesterMatrix(x^2, 0)
>
> > To be
>
> > [0 0]
> > [0 0]
>
> Why do you expect that? What definition are you using for the Sylvester
> Matrix?
Well, it seems th
You may also try to start a bash enviroment with sage variables set.
your_dir$ sage -sh
(sage subshell) your_dir$ make html
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more op
I find that this is not coherent with documentation of Finite Field.
"""
sage: G=GF(7,'a',modulus=QQ[x](x+2))
sage: G.modulus()
x + 6
sage: G.variable_name()
'x'
sage: G.polynomial_ring().hom([G.gen()])
Ring morphism:
From: Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Finite Field of size 7
To: Fini
on?
I do not need these modulus, but they are used for instance in
NumberField even for degree one extensions.
> > David
>
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 08:06, luisfe wrote:
> >> I find that this is not coherent with documentation of Finite Field.
>
> >> "
I have seen that there are three projects awarded in Google summer of
code 2012
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/projects/list/google/gsoc2012
Congratulations!
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+u
On Nov 15, 2:38 pm, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2010-11-15 13:53, Niels wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I think the following is a bug (only complete factorization after 2 steps):
>
> Yes, it is a bug. The problem is with the upstream package PARI/GP.
Yes, it is a bug in pari. Note also the following:
On Nov 15, 3:21 pm, John Cremona wrote:
>
> According to Karim, one of these is now obsolete and should not be
> used. But I can never remember which
>
> John
According to the notes in:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7097
factornf uses Trager's trick and is deprecated in favo
About this problem. Should one open a new ticket or reopen 7097 for
this problem?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.go
It is surely a bug, Sage does not compute the right factorization.
This is now #10279
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://gro
On Nov 16, 12:28 pm, Niels wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to compute the gcd of two bi-variate polynomials over a number
> field:
>
> sage: R = PolynomialRing( QQ, var( 't' ), order = 'lex' )
> sage: t = R.gens()[0]
> sage: T = NumberFieldTower( [t ** 2 - t + 1], 'a0' )
> sage: a0
On Nov 24, 10:34 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When defining a number field, it is optional to provide a canonical
> embedding into the real lazy field.
>
> If two number fields are defined by the same polynomial and the same
> generator name, they are still considered different, if only one of
On Nov 25, 11:27 am, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Luis!
>
> On 25 Nov., 10:34, luisfe wrote:
>
> > Suppose the following:
>
> > sage: K. = NumberField(x^4-2)
> > sage: L1. = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = r4**2)
> > sage: L2. = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = -r4
On Nov 25, 1:53 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> With merging as I proposed in my previous post, one gets
>
> sage: K. = NumberField(x^4-2)
> sage: L1. = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = r4**2)
> sage: L2. = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = -r4**2)
> sage: from sage.categories.pushout import pus
Hi Simon,
On 25 nov, 13:53, Simon King wrote:
> Now I'm puzzled where the ERROR comes from.
I might be wrong, since coercion still looks "magic" like me. But it
seems that before trying pushout of the objects, Sage tries
L1.coerce_map_from(L2)
Now, it seems that, whenever BOTH fields have an em
On Dec 3, 7:54 pm, Niles wrote:
> A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
> automatic testing because some ticket attachments are being applied
> that shouldn't be -- is there a way to fix this myself without
> becoming a trac administrator?
+1 to this, that happens in m
On 3 dic, 20:49, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> > Apply foo.pyx, foo2.pyx
>
> I mean of course foo.patch, foo2.patch :).
>
> > This will "reset" the patch list at that point, any added patches will
> > get (semi-intellegently) appended to the list.
On Dec 5, 6:15 pm, Iftikhar Burhanuddin
wrote:
> Please explain the reason for the error. Is the number too big? If so what
> is the range of integer computability?
>
> Regards,
> Ifti
>
> sage: E = 2^(10^10)
The error explains,
RuntimeError: exponent must be at most 2147483647
that is 2**31-1
On Dec 15, 8:35 am, Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> My impression is that relatively often questions on sage-support are
> about people accidentally mixing symbolics and polynomials. For
> example
> sage: z = var('z')
> sage: R = QQ[z]
> and then believing that z is the generator of R.
>
> I t
On Dec 16, 6:32 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> On 15 Dez., 15:39, Simon King wrote:
>
> > This is why I suggest the scenario "the ring constructor prints a
> > warning if the variable name is not a string": QQ[x] or
> > PolynomialRing(QQ,[singular],1) would result in a warning, but the
> > *
I have rewritten the karatsuba algorithm for
Polynomial_generic_dense_field. The code needs some cleaning, but it
is already usable at #10255
My primary personal motivation is that, for number fields as base
rings, karatsuba performs worse than the generic multiplication. For
this concrete problem
On Jan 14, 7:07 pm, rjf wrote:
> For a discussion of practical fast polynomial multiplication,
> seehttp://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/dumbisfast.pdf
> and also the first reference in that paper.
> (As well as other references).
> The code in GMP is likely to be well thought out.
Than
On Jan 17, 12:16 am, Ben Linowitz wrote:
> Sorry about that. I was thinking of the number fields as being
> subfields of C by definition. What if each of the number fields came
> with a specified embedding into C?
>
> Ben
I am not sure for the case of embeddings into C, I would compute a
common
On Feb 1, 3:41 am, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> On 01/30/11 03:27 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> Put another way, there should be a discussion about what Sage needs, how
> urgent
> it is, and a plan drawn up.
>
> I thought porting Sage to Windows via Cygwin was seen as important, as it will
> dramaticall
On Feb 9, 9:46 am, "D. S. McNeil" wrote:
> >> (1) gcd is broken.http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10459
> [..]
> > I'm personally OK either way with this.
>
> IMO a*b = gcd(a,b)*lcm(a,b) should be maintained wherever possible.
> There are pari codes whose direct Sage equivalent silen
On Feb 10, 3:19 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi koffie,
> Since QQ is a field, it is a principal ideal domain, where lcm and gcd
> should have something to do with ideals. So, clearly lcm(4/1,2)=1.
It would be good to know what why lcm was written as it is right now.
--
To post to this group, send
On Feb 10, 2:10 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Bruno
>
> Let me phrase it like this: There are different interpretations of the
> term "consistent".
>
> On the one hand, one could mean "consistency with respect to sub-
> structures": Let S be a sub-ring of a ring R; gcd_R is consistent with
> gcd_S <
On Feb 11, 10:49 am, Simon King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11 Feb., 09:56, Simon King wrote:
>
> > Well, I had the impression that a couple of people are in favour of
> > the following:
> > gcd(a/b,c/d) := gcd(a,c)/lcm(b,d)
> > lcm(a/b,c/d) := lcm(a,c)/gcd(b,d)
>
> It just occurs to me that I am inc
On 12 feb, 03:20, William Stein wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2011, D. S. McNeil wrote:
>
> I vote for changing the defn of sage rational gcd to match the
> "Pari/Mma/(Sage lcm+Maxima gcd) " convention. Since +1 isn't having
> the desired effect, I vote with my BDFL powers instead.
>
> Som
On Mar 1, 1:32 pm, "Johan S. R. Nielsen"
wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:13 am, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>
> Nice! I weren't aware of this module. When you get a good idea,
> there's a good chance that someone else thought of it before ;-) I
> like the fact that one can dynamically hack into an object's
>
On Mar 1, 3:43 pm, "Johan S. R. Nielsen"
wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:56 pm, luisfe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > No, the lazy_import object keeps wrapping the original object, but
> > when accessing the lazy_import object it imports the real object in
> > the
On Mar 1, 10:13 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Johan S. R. Nielsen
> See lazy-import. Doing this for everything may incur significant
> delays the first time a function is called (rather than before the
> prompt) and there are issues with Sage being fragile about t
Could someone highlight why the following happens?
from a sage session, the names that can be imported from
sage.rings.integer_ring are:
{{{
EuclideanDomains Zfactor
is_IntegerRing
IntegerRing ZZ factorizationring
IntegerRing_classari
The difference is with sage.all
$ sage -ipython
Python 2.6.4 (r264:75706, Jan 15 2011, 11:46:28)
Type "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
IPython 0.9.1 -- An enhanced Interactive Python.
? -> Introduction and overview of IPython's features.
%quickref -> Quick referen
This doctest without write permissions is a known bug.
There are already 6 failures in plot.py
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5155
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegro
Cool, thanks!
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
On Apr 7, 10:16 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Simon King wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
>
> > On 7 Apr., 09:09, Rob Beezer wrote:
> >> As in many things, my personal feeling is that common sense and good
> >> judgement should trump strict rules.
+1 I think that this is a mat
I am not sure if this is a bug or an unexpected bud valid behavior,
since we are dealing with conversions instead of coercions.
{{{
sage: K1=PolynomialRing(QQ, 't',10, order=TermOrder('degrevlex', 4) +
TermOrder('degrevlex', 6) )
sage: K2=PolynomialRing(ZZ, 't',10)
sage: [K2(f) for f in K1.gens()]
On May 24, 9:37 pm, luisfe wrote:
> I am not sure if this is a bug or an unexpected bud valid behavior,
> since we are dealing with conversions instead of coercions.
>
> {{{
> sage: K1=PolynomialRing(QQ, 't',10, order=TermOrder('degrevlex', 4) +
>
Hi list,
Is there any problem now with the patchbot?
I see that many tickets fail at the doctest on 4.7.1, however, if you
check the logs in most of them you will not find any failure in the
log. In some cases some tests have been killed, kind of timeout? or
there are genuine doctest failures but
I think that the following behavior is wrong.
sage: K=QQ['t,s']
sage: L=QQ['t0,t1,s0,s1']
sage: L.inject_variables()
Defining t0, t1, s0, s1
sage: Hom(K,L)([t0+t1,s0]).register_as_coercion()
sage: L.coerce_map_from(K)
Ring morphism:
From: Multivariate Polynomial Ring in t, s over Rational F
user@frink /opt/sage/sage
$ time true
real0m0.000s
user0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
user@frink /opt/sage/sage
$ type time
time es una palabra clave del shell
user@frink /opt/sage/sage
$ /bin/sh -c "time true"
real0m0.000s
user0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
user@frink /opt/sage/sage
$ b
On 28 feb, 17:26, Jernej Azarija wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have noticed (at least in the fields to which I made some small
> contributions) that the number of reviewers is arbitrary. Sometimes there
> is only one reviewer sometimes two, three..
>
> I cannot speak for others, but I wouldn't want to be
>
>
> The point is that I would be totally amazed if #12224 were to (ever) be
> reviewed. Do you think that it could be reviewed twice ? :-P
>
>
Do not despair, my pet bug #10255 has the patch ready since two years
ago... ugh, that hurts. Anyone willing for reviewing it? :D
--
You received th
Hi,
Can any one enlight me about what is going on here?
{{{
sage: t=(1,2,3)
sage: type(t)
tuple
sage: len(t)
3
sage: len(t)=4
sage: t
t
sage: type(t)
sage.symbolic.expression.Expression
}}}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsu
John,
I think you are also hitting #10255, current polynomial multiplication code
in Sage is worse than the classic school multiplication method in many
instances. Do you mind trying the code after applying #10255? And (maybe)
also #10480. The data would be very valuable to me.
Thanks,
Luis
While playing with ticket #10480 I have found a grey area in the
representation of power series
{{{
sage: K. = Qp(3)[[]]
sage: f = 3^2*w + O(w^3)
sage: g = O(3)*w
sage: fg = f*g
sage: fg
0
sage: fg == 0
No, you cannot. You should always think dictionaries as unordered
structures. Dictionary keys depend not only on the keys themselves but
on the operations performed on the dictionary. Take a simple case with
hash collision:
{{{
sage: A={}
sage: B={}
sage: A[hash('a')]=0
sage: A['a']=1
sage: B['a']
Dear devs,
Is there any problem login to the trac server? I am not able to login, I
have asked a new password and has arrived, but still cannot login.
Thanks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and sto
Looks like a Singular error, the first Hilbert series and second Hilbert
series returned are not consistent:
{{{
sage: gb = I.groebner_basis()
sage: h1=hilb(gb,1)
// ** _ is no standard basis
sage: h2=hilb(gb,2)
// ** _ is no standard basis
sage: Zt=ZZ['t']
sage: f1=Zt(list(h1));f1.degree()
On Monday, May 19, 2014 11:52:13 AM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> Since my review request for the urgent bugfix for this:
>
> sage: RLF(0) < oo
> False
>
> has been hijacked by an open-ended discussion about and whether grants
> ought to be acknowledged in the source tree, I'd like to bre
In fact, I think that this feature is explicitely allowed and that, as long
as you stay within the sage library, code should not break for having a
ring with repeated variables.
However, I agree that it is weird.
Funny example:
sage: K=QQ['x,y,y,x']
sage: sum(K.gens())
x + y + y + x
sage: _(x=
I opened a ticket last week, #21782
The same problem appears in debian testing. Currently I am building sage
with gcc-5
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 2:23:19 PM UTC+2, Herbert Eisenbeis wrote:
>
> Link problem in flint-2-5.2:
> /usr/bin/ld: -r and -pie may not be used together
>
> Log enclos
I have a random doctest failure on several machines running debian. It does
not happen always, never if I doctest the file directly, only with make
ptestlong. It is more likely to happen in a virtual machine so I think it
is a type of race condition or memory management issue.
Any idea how to d
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/27250
--
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, send email
79 matches
Mail list logo
