On Nov 12, 2007 10:40 AM, rdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got extremely happy when I've found out about this cool project,
> it was time that some powerful 'mathematica-like' open source package
> would see the light :-)
>
> I've installed successfully SAGE on my linux machine in no time bu
William Stein wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2007 4:04 PM, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>>> Hello folks,
>>> 2.8.14 is planned for next week, depending on how close the release
>>> will be to Sage Bug Day 6 on November 2nd, 2007 we might do another
>> December 2nd?
>
> Is th
On Nov 21, 2007 4:04 PM, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
> > Hello folks,
>
> >
> > 2.8.14 is planned for next week, depending on how close the release
> > will be to Sage Bug Day 6 on November 2nd, 2007 we might do another
>
> December 2nd?
Is there something wrong
William Stein wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> 2.8.14 is planned for next week, depending on how close the release
> will be to Sage Bug Day 6 on November 2nd, 2007 we might do another
December 2nd?
Jaap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage
Hello folks,
Sage 2.8.13 has been released. Sources are and binaries should soon be
available at
http://sagemath.org/download.html
This is the first release after the excellent Sage Days 6 in Bristol.
We are a couple days late, mostly due to a rocky initial alpha0 that
took some t
On Nov 21, 2007 10:04 AM, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> William wrote:
>
> > But this might be pretty hard to fix soon. Making sure we
> > are well aware of it, though, is critically important if we
> > are to push Sage to be truly professional level in
> > non-algebraic areas...
>
>
> I don't like that meaning for solve, since it is misleading to me, and
> is inconsistent. e.g., what about:
>
> sage: solve(x^5 + x^3 + 1, x)
> [0 == x^5 + x^3 + 1]
>
> When there is no explicit solution, maxima usually returns something
> to explicitly indicate this.
>
> Also, as a data point,
William wrote:
> But this might be pretty hard to fix soon. Making sure we
> are well aware of it, though, is critically important if we
> are to push Sage to be truly professional level in
> non-algebraic areas...
Do you have a rough estimate of how much it might cost to fix this bug
(either
On Nov 21, 2007 8:24 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think in the long-run Sage will have to completely implement its own solve
> > function, which is better than Maxima's. Thoughts from Ondrej-sympy would
> > be
> > appreciated here.
>
>
> Isn't solve supposed to return an
> I think in the long-run Sage will have to completely implement its own solve
> function, which is better than Maxima's. Thoughts from Ondrej-sympy would be
> appreciated here.
Isn't solve supposed to return an analylic solution only? Is there an
analytic solution to this equation? It doesn't
On Nov 20, 2007 12:28 PM, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have any thoughts on why the solve() function this program
> returns an empty list?:
>
> sage: var('t')
> sage: a = .004*(8*e^(-(300*t)) - 8*e^(-(1200*t)))*(72*e^(-(300*t))
> - 1152*e^(-(1200*t))) +.004*(9600*e^(-
On Nov 21, 2007 7:00 AM, a user rwrote wrote:
> On a more serious note, I do from time to time sit down with SAGE and
> find a handful of issues and report them to someone. But I know how
> annoying it is to have someone complaining about your code. So I try
> not to do it too often. It's always a
On Nov 20, 2007 9:07 PM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been playing with spaces of modular symbols over finite fields, and
> > I ran into two issues that seem to be separate (they're tickets #1231
> > and #1232 now):
> >
> > 1. doing
> >
> > ModularSymbols(1,8,0,GF(3)).s
On Nov 20, 2007 9:07 PM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 4:56 am, Alex Ghitza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been playing with spaces of modular symbols over finite fields, and
> > I ran into
On Nov 20, 2007 7:37 PM, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hmm... I just tested it on a newer version, and I get the incorrect
> answer. I'll look into it more.
>
It was similar to but not identical to 987 -- or more, it was that the fix
for #987 wasn't sufficient. This is now fixd in
15 matches
Mail list logo
