Just to throw a few thoughts in, I think sage is excellently
positioned to have a big impact for empiricists and theoreticians
within the biological sciences as well as bio-informatics. I haven't
trudged through much of openwetware yet, but it might be useful to
expand/make another page that show
Hi folks,
I finished coding a few changes to foo.show to make it easy to display
plots for use in papers etc without having to directly interact with
matplotlib. Specifically, for regular plots, (I haven't tried this
with contour plots but it should play well with minor additions), I've
added an
On Jun 11, 7:48 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you're done, just post it here. Once you get a tiny bit more
> experience you can get a trac account (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac)
> from Michael Abshoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and post patches
> for review there.
This
That's great and somewhat amazing that I didn't realize what was
producing .patch files. Will use in future.
Thomas
On Jun 11, 11:30 am, Harald Schilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 6:21 pm, "Thomas Keller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the tip Harald,
>
> No problem and
I'm working on modeling the efficacy of a hypothetical infectious
vaccine (like the live polio vaccine). I have lots of small coding
chunks that makes the sage notebook great for working through each
section of the problem. Sage including scipy and networkx has
eliminated a lot of the tedium I w
The last build I built from source (3.0.3) took ~ 3 hours total on my
average dell laptop (running kubuntu 8.0.4.1). Building 3.0.5 is
ongoing, but has spent the last 5+ hours on "zn_poly tuning program."
Is this normal? It hasn't stalled, but has effectively tripled the
compilation time (at le
. I'll check the log after this
attempt finishes.
Regards,
Thomas
On Jul 16, 10:43 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 8:39 pm, tkeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > The last build I built from source (3.0.3) took ~ 3 hours total on m
ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 8:54 pm, tkeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > I may have been imprecise. To clarify, zn_poly built, then displayed
> > this message:
> > Calibrating cycle counter... ok (3.84e+18)
&g
AIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2008, at 11:54 PM, tkeller wrote:
>
> > I may have been imprecise. To clarify, zn_poly built, then displayed
> > this message:
> > Calibrating cycle counter... ok (3.84e+18)
>
> Okay, this means that zn_poly thinks your clock speed i
Here are my thoughts as a non-mathematician (ie disregard as needed/
always) :
I should preface with the comment that I think this is a good talk
with the significant caveat that my input may be worthless since I
don't know the audience.
The second quote on page 4 of the pdf is quite long in my
Thanks for all the recent work upgrading the base python distribution
to 2.6, I imagine it was quite a task. I noticed that installing the
biopython-1.49b spkg is broken from the upgrade . I have upgraded the
spkg to 1.51b and it installs and works fine on my sage-4.1
installation. Is there a plac
, bbarker wrote:
> Great, glad to see this! Thanks for the updated spkg.
>
> On Jul 26, 9:47 pm, Marshall Hampton wrote:
>
> > Ok, I posted my spkg at:
>
> >http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6634
>
> > It would be great if you (tkeller) got a trac accou
12 matches
Mail list logo
