Sorry to jump in late; I just found this discussion by googling
something else..
Maxima was berated for being too slow in factoring this..
-p10^170*X1^10*X2^10+p10^130*X1^5*X2^10+p10^130*X1^10*X2^5-
p10^90*X1^5*X2^5+p10^80*X1^5*X2^5-p10^40*X2^5-p10^40*X1^5+1
which apparently did not terminate
> -Original Message-
> From: Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:47 AM
> To: Michael.Abshoff
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> sage-devel; Robert Dodier; maxima mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Maxima] [sage-devel] compiling Maxima
more response to Juan..
>
> * The simplistic garbage collector is an option and it is provided for
> platforms in which Boehm-Weiser does not run. Currently, this means
> _none_ of the supported platforms.
>
> * Boehm-Weiser is a strong garbage collector and a very powerful one
> in terms of tun
I sent a note to boothby, asking that he forward it to sage-devel if
my cc didn't work, which it didn't. But he didn't forward it. That's
ok, I guess.
In the unlikely event that you want to read the whole back-and-forth,
please contact me or Tom.
But there is one point that I think is worth discu
se as sent to Tom, you can ask him or me; I
asked him to forward it to sage-devel but he, perhaps wisely,
declined :)
The new thread is, I hope, of interest.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
nd I
> assume that much of sage-devel will, too. Perhaps you could start a blog and
> people can read about it there?
>
> --tom
>
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, rjf wrote:
>
> > See the response to a small part of this in a separate thread on open-
> > source a
oh well. I'll try to respond civilly.
<.. big snip..>
>
> > [RJF] I really don't care about Magma. I know that some mathematicians do.
>
> This rather vague statement I think might signal a different between
> philosophies.
I did not mean to be vague. I
To the vast majority of users, Linux is just as much a black box as
Windows.
Indeed, I think my Tivo DVR runs Linux, and in principle I have access
to the
source, but I would no more consider trying to fix a bug in it than I
would
remove my own appendix.
Given the whole range of programs and proj
It might be worth observing that the Department of Energy was happy to
supply DOE Macsyma to Bill Schelter or to anyone else (except Fidel
Castro) on almost any terms, non-exclusively They gave Bill
permission to redistribute under GPL, because that was what Bill
requested. DOE did not ask for,
I have repeatedly pointed out the difficulties of dealing
with assumptions (in Macsyma, Mathematica, Maple).
Duplicating these systems will duplicate the difficulties.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To un
, not Sage. An interesting commentary if in fact Sage, in
this instance, is strictly less expressive than Maxima.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROT
before you try to make it "faster".
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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/g
They say that everyone is entitled to an opinion. At least in the
election off-years.
consider how to evaluate
3+ 4/(5+1/0).Would you say that was equal to 3, or would you make
the system barf?
RJF
On Oct 10, 10:11 am, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2
e
(student?) would prefer to replace Maxima with Ginac because
" there is more programmers on C++ than Lisp, so more people would
enhance the tool. This approach is the one I prefer. "
On that basis we should write programs in Chinese. Ther
icense for export
to (say) North Korea, Burma, Cuba, or China.
I don't know if this is has been overlooked,
or, as I would certainly prefer, has been resolved satisfactorily and
is not of concern.
Classifying Maxima (essentially) as a munition seems
counterproductiv
d a program
regardless of how nice the language is.
I hope these comments, negative as they may seem, provide some help
in formulating your position paper.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe fro
ich themselves
introduce additional bugs. Stamping out this phenomenon is difficult.
Especially in open-source projects, I think there are also well-
meaning and energetic individuals who are less clever and capable who
offer designs and implementations of features, or "fixes" that
The argument (specious, probably) is that if the compiler is open-
source
as well as the library, the operating system code etc, then an
industrious person
could try to verify all this.
It is often said that "Testing can only demonstrate the presence of a
bug, not its absence".
BUT
I think it
ding code has
found all the bugs? Discussants on this issue could probably benefit
by reading about program
verification, testing, debugging. These topics are covered in some
computer science courses.
RJF
On Apr 30, 11:21 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM, mark mcc
ort. Yet that
> turned out to be a critical and important part of their longterm
> strategy.
I don't understand. Is the difference between OS9 and OS X that OS X
is functionally the same but written in Python?
>
>
>
.
> The best we can do is to continue working to impr
ns of Un*x there
really are now, or have been in the past, and how much intellectual
effort has been squandered (or perhaps devoted to following the pure
rather than the polluted track?)
...
>
>
>
> > > It seems like you view Sage as a "waste of effort", since it i
code it took to implement.
Sorry, not in python.
There are also comments about GraphViz etc. It's not the only
program.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
source, and then as
components fail, the communication fails too.
On May 4, 9:00 pm, Rob Beezer wrote:
> On May 4, 5:03 pm, rjf wrote:
>
> > You might find this paper interesting, since it discusses the linkage
> > of an interactive graphics system (for graphs) to a computer al
t is that it's under 300 lines of code.
Probably not a winner for this conference :)
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googl
Disregarding the obvious " marketing fluff" of Wolfram's statement, it
seems to me plausible that some programs are more likely to be correct
(at least in well-understood basic components) than some theorems'
proofs. Here's why.
A program can be run on test data.
A program can sometimes be analy
I'm not saying every polynomial multiplication program can be shown to
be correct; just the method I suggested happens to be pretty simple.
If you write a polynomial multiplication program that has certain
breakpoints, e.g. switching to a different method like Karatsuba or
FFT at size 3000, then
lgorithm that
currently relies on Maxima, e.g., symbolic integration."
would be a huge waste of human effort, considering that the algorithms
in Maxima are still being improved, 40 years later.
There are still minor typos that I noticed.
RJF
On Jun 5, 3:56 am, Harald Schilly wrote
On Jun 10, 5:57 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> Harald Schilly wrote:
> > Nice and interesting article on everything2.com about free maths
> > software, a presentation by wolfram about mathematica and thoughts
> > about the reason, why mathematica is still tolerated. Link to Sage
> > included ;
s
a better version than the one packaged with Sage) and see what
happens.
RJF
On Jun 25, 9:14 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> Hi Brendan,
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:58:59 -0400
>
> Brendan Rooney wrote:
> > Hello
>
> > I am currently attempting to use sage to research gr
On Jun 25, 1:10 pm, gsw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suspect you're just running out of RAM.
> Not necessarily physically, but the construction Sage --> expect
> interface --> Maxima --> Lisp implementation is a fragile one. If the
> Lisp implementation "thinks" it runs out of space, this is not handled
It's possible to dismiss the result of the survey because of the low
participation level, or to dismiss the results because of a hypothesis
that the respondents already KNOW Sage and want to know something
else.
But I suspect that there is also an underlying current of simple lack
of interest in
w
bugs.
As for working around it, Bondarenko is not interested in work-
arounds. He is not interested in the result of this computation, which
was probably artificially generated by randomly clumping together
stuff. He is interested in finding bugs.
RJf
On Jul 4, 10:44 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby
allowing (a,b,c) to be a list of 3 items means that
(x+y) could either be a list of one item, namely x+y
or the expression x+y itself.
So it is probably a bad idea unless you think that singleton lists are
the same as their first element.
And I suspect that you don't want to think that.
tch.
On Jul 6, 7:34 pm, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:16 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> > allowing (a,b,c) to be a list of 3 items means that
> > (x+y) could either be a list of one item, namely x+y
> > or the expression x+y itself.
>
> > So it is
he current algorithms merged in some way, including some
novelties, like variable precision arithmetic and symbolic analysis.
You could try to duplicate that, but it would not be "just a matter
of "
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send
pertise on these packages, I
will keep you in mind if I find a problem in them!
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For mor
e letter of
transmission to Bill Schelter.
Actually, if they wrote a Lisp system in Python (most Lisp systems
have a small core written in C; that could be done in Python) then
they could claim DoE Maxima ran in Python (or "on top of
pt NotImplementedError:
> return maxima_integral(expression, v, a, b)
Oddly enough, work on Maxima in the last 12 months has covered the
same ground, with impulses and piecewise defined functions.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send
urned" by another
person using what was freely given away, makes no sense.
RJF
ps. It seems to me that 99% of the discussion of GPL "on the internet"
is ill-informed, naive, repetitive, pointless or all of the above.
On Jul 14, 5:30 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14
On Jul 15, 10:14 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:53 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> > That blog said "the symbolic math software community has been burned
> > in the past by people profiting from proprietary extensions of BSD
> > code without attribution
m Microsoft has as its premise the idea
that they would like to say that machines running MS Windows are
really good for running Sage.
Careful about have Sage folded in to someone's marketing brochure..
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, s
half of the students did a negligible amount of private
study during
the semester."
What I found particularly telling, is that the data they collected
showed the students really didn't want to do this computer stuff. And
from this, the authors took an enormous leap of faith to conclude that
th
I glanced at the document and at William's response. Here are a few
observations.
1. No native Windows version seems to me to be a big issue, but it has
never been
clear to me how hard it is for an ordinary user (not admin) to install
emulation software,
on a perhaps shared machine to run (or c
On Jul 25, 1:19 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>... snip...
>
> >(RJF) 2. The reason for the recommended choice of language is to avoid
> > languages with "long tool chains".
>
> (RB) I don't think this was the primary motive--qualities like easy to
>
I think it is worth pointing out that
(a) The bug found is a static typing error in which a program which,
in some circumstance, would do a list operation on
an argument which is an integer.
(b) This line of code in Maxima has probably been there for 35 years,
and so far as anyone knows, that lin
as whether there are other requirements. (I
have, in the past, received funding from DARPA, Office of Naval
Research, Army Research Office, as well as other non-DoD sources.)
Thanks
RJF
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-deve
On Aug 10, 2:00 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> > (RJF) Could you perhaps quote for us the DoD requirements? (and who in DoD
> > requires them).
>
>(William) No, I definitely can't. Sorry
On Aug 10, 10:21 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 2:00 pm, William Stein wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> > > > (RJF) Could you perhaps quote for us the Do
ablet
PCs. I stopped reading them when I realized that -- as
little as I knew about these development kits -- I knew much more than
95% of the people posting questions.)
RJF
On Aug 12, 6:58 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> Harald Schilly wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 4:56 pm, kcrisman
Regarding shipping 2 lisps:
I thought Sage already knew how to ship a kit for CLISP, because that
is what Sage was using for Maxima a year ago.
So the Sage project is already building the second lisp from scratch
now, voluntarily. ECL.
But you don't really have to generally ship 2 lisps, it see
wow, I post one place and it comes out in two places...
Here is an amplification about the comments on GMP and GMPY.
>From the perspective of Sage and python, I just took a look at the
current gmpy.
The documentation, which has not apparently been updated since 2003,
says
"Early tests have sho
at is re-used at each invocation of this code
segment.]
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
On Aug 16, 3:30 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
..snip...
>
> > {RJF] (mpfr::with-temps (/(- (* (- (* 2 i)1) x t1) (* (- i 1) t0)) i)))
>
> That's a very interesting example. Are you saying that Lisp
> automatically divines which MPFR functions to assign to those
> operators?
yte 32) (3
:returning :void
:arg-checking nil :call-direct t)
and the other is this call to a macro, which is then used by the
compiler to replace "+" by mpz_add
(defarithmetic + mpz_add)
in fact I use mpz_add in a few other places t
sgroups by the way?
I don't know. I don't count.
>
> Anyhow, thanks for the link, but I'm not presently interested in Lisp
> or other language design features.
You are welcome. I'm generally trying to add some light into the Sage
disc
s. Relying on this code as part of the core of
a system is however not such a great plan.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 Aug 17, 2:00 pm, gsw wrote:
> > 7. I have no problem with summer-of-code high school or college or ...
> > students writing programs. Relying on this code as part of the core of
> > a system is however not such a great plan.
>
> > RJF
>
> I allowed myself
cases.
I hope you can straighten this out before you present your results at
your conference.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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...@google
did you mean to integrate with respect to "x^2" ?
Well, x^2 doesn't occur in f(x). So let's rename x^2 as y.
What is the integral of f(x) with respect to y?
It is y*f(x).
substituting back x^2 for y, you get x^2*f(x).
Or did you mean something else? Certainly Maxima expects "the variable
o
Let's see, in sage then you have the following syntax.
(x,y) means a list
f(x,y) means a function application
(x+y) means grouping for arithmetic.
RationalField(x) means, uh, sortof "in indeterminate..."
Integer(4) means, uh, set the type? force a coercion?
Are there any other distinct uses
with this ---).
RJF
On Aug 18, 8:37 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2009, at 6:55 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:27 PM, William Stein
> > wrote:
>
> >>> --
> >>> s
On Aug 18, 6:48 pm, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:42 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> > did you mean to integrate with respect to "x^2" ?
>
> Yes.
Well then, since you meant to do that, what response would you
consider corre
Plotting algebraic curves == an application to pure math? Is that what
sympy is about?
factoring is used in simplifying expressions in an attempt to reformat
them for easier comprehension.
Factoring is used by "solve" in the obvious way to separate solutions
exactly.
Factoring is sometimes used
2 f(x))/dx^2 notation for derivatives, where the derivative is
definitely NOT with respect to x^2.
Blame Newton, I think, or maybe Leibniz?
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
does this.
Another possibility is to always insist on substitution semantic
rather than evaluation. Watch out for loops.
Evaluation and related things are discussed in published articles (one
by me, as it happens.)
RJF
On Aug 19, 1:09 pm, Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:56 pm, Nick A
nstraint on the variable k. Or would that be
k.type ?
I personally find the latter syntax to be ugly, and conflict inducing,
e.g. A.B also means some kind of multiplication, 3.4 does not mean
multiplication but 34/100, approximately. etc.
RJF
On Aug 21, 5:36 am, Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Aug
after.
A complete Allegro coding of this is online in my generic lisp
arithmetic package.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
It's nice that the "labels" issue has been resolved. It is fairly
implausible that a user would
type in 32,000 individual commands, so optimizing a search was an
obvious issue.
Of course lisp has hash tables. Also arrays.
The idea that you were generating tens of thousands of symbols -- in
additi
On Aug 27, 11:59 am, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Aug 27, 9:07 am, rjf wrote:
>
> > Let GMP do its own memory allocation. After Lisp has itself allocated
> > a structure S with a pointer to a GMP-allocated object, it knows what
> > to do: either S is
> > used o
en if
makelabel runs
through this search 4 times or so [bad programming unless you assume
it is of trivial length]
it does not seem to me that this would matter entirely so much.
But then I'm sure that Maxima does not have enough cupholders...
RJF
On Aug 27, 1:03 pm, William Stein wro
On Aug 27, 5:16 pm, Juanjo
wrote:
> On Aug 27, 11:24 pm, rjf wrote:
>
> > perhaps ECL does not have something like schedule-finalization. I
> > think this is present in CMUCL, SBCL, Lispworks, and AllegroCL, at least.
>
> ECL does have finalization but this is an ove
have a different take on it, if it actually has
generators for omitted terms.
A few weeks programming can save 30 minutes in the library.
RJF
On Aug 29, 12:53 am, jonhanke wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. To start the discussion, let me ask if
> there is a go
. So I'm not surprised at the slippage, to a "pre-parser"
and Cython and now , oh, let's add a postfix "!".)
But what I think is appropriate here is an explicit formulation about
what you are doing, either (a)(e) or something else, and the
consequences.
RJF
it seems to me that gradef in maxima does what you want. If you want
to re-implement the facility in your own system, why not implement
gradef?
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
It doesn't usually make sense to have two different global symbols
"x" with different types, so Maurizio is right, I think.
Also, Maxima will provide only one global symbol, and it should not
have conflicting declarations or assumptions, but these cannot always
be checked for consistency.
This
o
all appropriate resources, but that should be followed on sage-flame.
RJF
On Sep 20, 7:41 am, Bjarke Hammersholt Roune
wrote:
> I wanted to spark a discussion about this because I have a perception
> that it has not been discussed in a non-inflammatory way, and talking
> abo
itive. Like "what do you
mean you can't find the roots of a quintic because it is unsolvable??
It has 5 roots!"
etc
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
I think that some of the suggestions here pretty much miss the mark.
If you want to have Maxima do the same thing as Mathematica's Reduce
program
(and, by the way I think this would be good, especially since
Mathematica's Reduce
program seems to have been improved substantially so it is a store-
I think that this is one of those times that you might like to look up
in the literature how to do something, instead of pulling an
"algorithm" out of your posterior. Stable evaluation of polynomials is
the subject.
On Oct 1, 10:01 pm, Carlo Hamalainen
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:54 PM,
es in that paper for yet more ideas.
Or use Google. Try searching forpolynomial evaluation FFT
for some odd papers.
RJF
On Oct 2, 10:42 am, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:14 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> > I think that this is one of those times that you might like
the operations (substantially. Not just a
few bits.)
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
On Oct 2, 5:32 pm, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:58 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> > Reading the bug report it seemed to me that the code was determining
> > in some way that terms could be dropped off the sum because they were
> > too small to contribu
construct polynomials that are
difficult to factor.
I dunno about the Sage wrapper problem. If that's the difficulty,
maybe the subject line is wrong.
RJF
On Oct 1, 1:21 am, Andy Novocin wrote:
> By the way, last October I made a patch for NTL which makes NTL's
> factoring sign
am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:30 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> > hey, factoring-testing guys..
> > If you make up factoring problems this way, you are probably not doing
> > much testing of the real factoring algorithms.
>
> Actually, given this bug has been
ly to track
> errors when evaluating special functions that are sums of multiple
> terms, only here it is explicit and adapted to handle general
> expressions.
Bounding of errors in evaluating special functions in MPFR is, I'm
fairly sure,
done in a sensible way. Typically one ends up s
On Oct 4, 8:00 am, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:57 AM, rjf wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 5:11 am, Fredrik Johansson
> > wrote:
>
> > My guess is that you have not talked this over with a numerical
> > analyst.
>
> No, and I suppose a might if
ing like what you seem to have programmed.
Although there are several rigorous interval arithmetic systems
available in Lisp,
none of them have been incorporated in any "automatic" scheme in
Maxima, so far as I know.
I'm not sure whether this is because of
(a) lack of interest by u
On Oct 4, 11:00 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> You (or anyone else) could have followed Fredrik's frequent and
> detailed blogposts here:
>
> http://planet.sympy.org/
I quote from a recent entry by Frederik:
"
The tests above use well-behaved object functions; some corner cases
are likely f
10016 or more decimal
places.
I assume mpfr does such things. I hope you do such things in python
numerics.
RJF
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel
distinct subcomponent, but it probably wouldn't
be too useful. For example,
does x^6 occur in x*(x^5+1)?
I suggest you require that the value of v be a symbol.
RJF
On Oct 11, 7:33 am, "ma...@mendelu.cz" wrote:
> On 11 říj, 15:50, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
>
>
> >
Fake submissions?? Huh? By people who want to sell you fake Rolex
watches?
My objection is that the obvious question -- do you "know" maxima is
not
asked. (Similarly Axiom, I guess). But see sci.math.symbolic for
further discussion
of statistics.
On Nov 20, 3:07 am, Harald Schilly wrote:
> O
server (Wolfram Alpha).
> In which one person absolutely controls how everybody interprets and
> thinks about mathematical computation.
If you don't like Wolfram Alpha, you don't need to use it. It appears
to be free, though not open source.
Wolfram is not my favorite person either.
the 20,000 messages "this year".
Do you count Axiom, Reduce, and Maxima as "opponents" of Sage, too??
Or do you only count commercial programs?
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
ntinue to rent his garret and buy the thin gruel he uses as the
basis for his diet. "
I think that if NSF sent the proposal over to computer science and
engineering, it might not get a great reception, but it is hard to
predict such things.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage
On Nov 23, 8:38 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:28 AM, rjf wrote:
> > From the proposal
>
> > ... and which has sophisti-
> > cated interfaces to nearly all other mathematics software, including
> > Mathematica, Maple,
> > MATLAB and
#x27;s venerable GCD algorithm, I would
assume the paper was about some improved method.
It is, of course, your NSF proposal, and you can say whatever you
wish.
RJF
--
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
On Nov 23, 1:33 pm, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 01:04:25PM -0800, rjf wrote:
> > > > Actually, while Maxima includes library access to Fortran methods, it
> > > > is far inferior to what could be done in numeric integration,
> > > >
Is the topic of "how should a Sage proposal be written so that it is
funded by NSF" really something to be relegated to sage-flame?
I don't know how many other readers here have (repeatedly) served as
NSF reviewers or panelists evaluating proposals.
Based on my contributions to the writing of thi
On Nov 23, 3:49 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM,rjf wrote:
> >> > "venerable" Maxima is mentioned once, suggesting that the only thing
> >> > it can do is symbolic integration and numeric integration.
> >> > Actually
person 1/N of the available money and say "enter the
competition".
or
2. Encourage activity at the frontier: people who take the most
advanced of the existing systems and
push it further.
Now William may consider that he is doing (2). I consider that, to
the extent that he is encouragi
1 - 100 of 623 matches
Mail list logo
