Dear Michael.
Thanks for the support. I'm going to try and build from source. By the
way I'm quite new into linux and haven't ever done such a thing, but
as in swimming or in mountain climbing for everyone someday the day
has come to do the thing on your own. So I have to face the fact that
tonig
On Feb 14, 12:17 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Paulo Motta wrote:
> > My
> > question is: how to do this? How I can take a complete picture of the Sage
> > homepage? Sorry for this question.
Firefox has various extensions for this, for example
https://addons.mozi
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Paulo Motta wrote:
> Dear Dr. Stein,
>
> First of all, thank you for Sage!! I am preparing a presentation in
> portuguese about Sage for my undergraduate students (signal and system,
> and introduction to cryptogrraphy courses).In a recent talk
> (seapig-20090131)
On Feb 13, 2:09 pm, littlemathteacher wrote:
Hi,
> Sorry, I should mention that this machine has Ubuntu 8.04 (the one I'd
> prefer) and also Vista (Longhorn) installed.
>
> Thanks
Could you post the output from
cat /proc/cpuinfo
This would help to assure that you don't get a binary which req
Sorry, I should mention that this machine has Ubuntu 8.04 (the one I'd
prefer) and also Vista (Longhorn) installed.
Thanks
On 13 Feb., 23:00, littlemathteacher wrote:
> Dear users, dear Dr. Stein.
>
> Thanks a lot for this great program.
>
> Tonight I am trying to put sage up on an AMD Athlon 6
On Feb 13, 1:55 pm, littlemathteacher wrote:
Hi,
> Thanks a lot. 3.2.3 is running fine without any error message. And it
> is very impressive to me and my collegues. We're considering to load
> it on our school server. The best thing for education and pupils is
> that it is running in your br
Dear users, dear Dr. Stein.
Thanks a lot for this great program.
Tonight I am trying to put sage up on an AMD Athlon 64 x2 TK-55 an I
don't know which binary to use. The one for opteron does not work.
Thaks a lot.
Yours,
littlemathteacher
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~
Thanks a lot. 3.2.3 is running fine without any error message. And it
is very impressive to me and my collegues. We're considering to load
it on our school server. The best thing for education and pupils is
that it is running in your browser and so you only have to copy and
paste a little and to k
> Instead of using vectors, you should just use the indexing on the
> polynomials to extract the coefficients you want:
>
> sage: matrix([[p[i] for i in range(3)] for p in [x^10%p1, x^11%p1, x^12%p1]])
> [1 0 1]
> [1 1 1]
> [1 1 0]
>
There's also the "padded_list" method, used exactly for getting
Jason Grout wrote:
> David Joyner wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Jason Grout
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> So I need to implement a .jacobian() method for SR^n, plus .arguments()
>>> and .variables(). Or is this the right place for these things? I guess
>>> that's why I'm asking the
Currently polymake is not well supported at all within Sage. There
are a few distinct reasons for that. If someone is interested in Sage
and polytopes, I recommend looking at geometry/polyhedra.py. The main
object right now is the Polyhedron class which can do quite a few
basic operations, most
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:36 AM, acd wrote:
> When I try the following in Sage, it fails because leading zeros in
> the vector are skipped:
The leading zeros aren't skipped -- the trailing ones are. For example,
sage: R. = GF(2)[]
sage: list(x^4+x^3+1)
[1, 0, 0, 1, 1]
The i^th entry i
I want to create the matrix which corresponds to multiplication with
x^m %p
for a given polynomial p.
This means the matrix consists of the coefficients of the polynomials
x^m%p, x^*(m+1)%p, etc.
When I try the following in Sage, it fails because leading zeros in
the vector are skipped:
ms2 = mat
13 matches
Mail list logo
