[sage-support] Re: Sage 2.10 released!

2008-01-19 Thread mabshoff
On Jan 19, 5:36 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] dortmund.de> wrote: > Hello folks, > > Sage 2.10 has been released on January 18th, 2008. It is available at > >http://sagemath.org/download.html > > * About Sage (http://www.sagemath.org) > > Sage is developed by volunteers and combine

[sage-support] Re: SAGE at ISP etc

2008-01-19 Thread William Stein
On Jan 19, 2008 8:44 PM, Timothy Clemans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The jsMath fonts are primarily important in the case of printing. You > don't need those fonts normally just to use jsMath in a web browser. > You don't absolutely _need_ them, but they make the mathematics look much much bet

[sage-support] Re: SAGE at ISP etc

2008-01-19 Thread Timothy Clemans
The jsMath fonts are primarily important in the case of printing. You don't need those fonts normally just to use jsMath in a web browser. On Jan 19, 8:26 pm, kks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have 2 questions: > >I happen to have lots of space on an ISP site which I administer. > Is it poss

[sage-support] Re: SAGE at ISP etc

2008-01-19 Thread Mike Hansen
Hello, >I happen to have lots of space on an ISP site which I administer. > Is it possible to unarchive the sage package in the public_html folder > and start sage with a .php script to host educational notebooks? If you have shell acess on your ISP's machine than it's probably possible. >

[sage-support] SAGE at ISP etc

2008-01-19 Thread kks
I have 2 questions: I happen to have lots of space on an ISP site which I administer. Is it possible to unarchive the sage package in the public_html folder and start sage with a .php script to host educational notebooks? I used to use Texmacs for the rendering of formulas generated by an

[sage-support] Re: Elementary symmetric function expansion (bug?)

2008-01-19 Thread BFJ
Hi, I'm using Sage 2.10 now. Expansion for elements in SFAElementary works great now, but there is another problem: the expansion lies in the wrong ring. sage: e=SFAElementary(QQ) sage: f=e([2]).expand(2) sage: f x0*x1 sage: f.parent() Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x0, x1, x2 over Rational Fie

[sage-support] Re: graphs(n) behavior under restriction

2008-01-19 Thread William Stein
On Jan 19, 2008 5:48 PM, kcrisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The graphs(...) construction is naturally an iterator, so instead of > > constructing a list, just iterate through them, saving the ones you > > need. Try this: > > sage: def check_size(g): > > : return g.size() == 6 >

[sage-support] Re: graphs(n) behavior under restriction

2008-01-19 Thread kcrisman
> The graphs(...) construction is naturally an iterator, so instead of > constructing a list, just iterate through them, saving the ones you > need. Try this: > sage: def check_size(g): > : return g.size() == 6 > : > sage: L = [] > sage: for g in graphs(7): > : if check_size(

[sage-support] Re: graphs(n) behavior under restriction

2008-01-19 Thread Robert Miller
In sage 2.10, if you type sage: graphs? The whole bottom part of the documentation clearly explains how to use the graph iterator. You don't need to dig around in any source for that. I'll add a line at the top that indicates to go down for that... > Okay, then I have a different question. Is i

[sage-support] Re: graphs(n) behavior under restriction

2008-01-19 Thread Robert Miller
I should add that the existence of the ability to do sage: for g in graphs(n): : do stuff... was entirely a result of my research. It was just a toy example I did for myself to understand the algorithm, which I intend to use for other purposes. Also, coming very soon will be a linear tim

[sage-support] Re: Problems with standalone python/sage scripts

2008-01-19 Thread Georg
On 19 Jan., 14:57, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the upshot of the entire discussion above is (or should be) to use > > #!/usr/bin/env sage > > instead of > > #!/usr/bin/env sage -python > > This assumes sage is in your path -- and indeed it should be if you want >

[sage-support] Re: Sage 2.10 released!

2008-01-19 Thread bill purvis
On Saturday 19 January 2008, William Stein wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008 7:39 AM, mabshoff > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 12:06 pm, bill purvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Saturday 19 January 2008, mabshoff wrote:> Hello folks, > > > > > > > Sage 2.10 has been released on January

[sage-support] Re: Sage 2.10 released!

2008-01-19 Thread William Stein
On Jan 19, 2008 7:39 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 12:06 pm, bill purvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 19 January 2008, mabshoff wrote:> Hello folks, > > > > > Sage 2.10 has been released on January 18th, 2008. It is available at > > > > >http:

[sage-support] Re: Sage 2.10 released!

2008-01-19 Thread mabshoff
On Jan 19, 12:06 pm, bill purvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 19 January 2008, mabshoff wrote:> Hello folks, > > > Sage 2.10 has been released on January 18th, 2008. It is available at > > >http://sagemath.org/download.html > > > * About Sage (http://www.sagemath.org) Hi

[sage-support] Re: Problems with standalone python/sage scripts

2008-01-19 Thread William Stein
On Jan 19, 2008 2:25 AM, bill purvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 19 January 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2008 7:38 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 18, 2008 10:00 PM, Georg Grafendorfer > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Michael, > >

[sage-support] Re: Sage 2.10 released!

2008-01-19 Thread bill purvis
On Saturday 19 January 2008, mabshoff wrote: > Hello folks, > > Sage 2.10 has been released on January 18th, 2008. It is available at > >http://sagemath.org/download.html > > * About Sage (http://www.sagemath.org) > As a relative newbie to sage-devel can I ask: Is it safe to assume tha

[sage-support] Re: Problems with standalone python/sage scripts

2008-01-19 Thread bill purvis
On Saturday 19 January 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008 7:38 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2008 10:00 PM, Georg Grafendorfer > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Michael, > > > OK, i'm already a bit confused, and i don't know any more what your > > > r