Dear Stan
I found it here, for instance:
http://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/sagemath/osx/index.html
but indeed only for PowerPC
Regards
Giovanni
On Oct 20, 8:32 am, Stan Schymanski wrote:
> Dear Giovanni,
>
> Could you tell me where you found a dmg for 10.4.11? I tried to compile
> from source
Dear Giovanni,
Could you tell me where you found a dmg for 10.4.11? I tried to compile
from source on my 10.4.11 box without success, then I tried to download
a binary instead, but only found binaries for 10.5 and 10.6.
Cheers,
Stan
abaco68 wrote:
> Hi
> I have installed sage 4.1.2 on a Power
Interesting point, I've made http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7253
On Oct 19, 2009, at 1:49 PM, finotti wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I need to compute some larger powers of polynomials in characteristic
> p>0. I've noticed that Sage does not do it very efficiently, as even
> f^(p^n) takes
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM, David M. Monarres wrote:
>
> Is there a good reason to use the 64 bit 10.6 binaries when there
> seems to be quite a few failed doctests (at least on my machine)? Is
> there a good reason to use the 64 bit binaries when they are still
> buggy and the 32-bit 10.5
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Le Fou Volant
wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I finally got around to installing Sage on another machine I work on.
> > This machine runs Linux Centos.
> >
I'm still trying to get Sage to work on CentOS 4.7. Any pointers you might
have would be greatly appreciated.
Hi all:
I'm trying to differentiate implicitly and solve for the derivative
but get an error. Does anyone know what's wrong?
Alex
--
| Sage Version 4.1.2, Release Date: 2009-10-13 |
| Type notebook() for
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Le Fou Volant wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I finally got around to installing Sage on another machine I work on.
> This machine runs Linux Centos. The problem I had with my Mac is
> quantitatively different, but qualitatively the same:
> I can open 240 files in a for loop
On Oct 19, 1:40 pm, Sterling wrote:
> Does SAGE support complex integration? This doesn't seem to work:
> z = var('z')
> integrate(1/z,z,-i,i)
> It returns an error saying the lower limit needs to be real.
(Wouldn't this depend on the path of integration and branches in any
case, since this ha
yes.
--
David Monarres
dmmonar...@gmail.com
"There... I've run rings 'round you logically"
-- Monty Python's Flying Circus
On Oct 19, 2009, at 3:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM, David M. Monarres > wrote:
>>
>> Is there a good reason to use the 64 bit 10.6 binar
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM, David M. Monarres wrote:
>
> Is there a good reason to use the 64 bit 10.6 binaries when there
> seems to be quite a few failed doctests (at least on my machine)? Is
> there a good reason to use the 64 bit binaries when they are still
> buggy and the 32-bit 10.5
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:22 PM, finotti wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I see that "max" in Sage is not the "max" of Python:
>
> =
> Python 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Jan 4 2009, 21:59:32)
> [GCC 4.3.2] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more informat
Is there a good reason to use the 64 bit 10.6 binaries when there
seems to be quite a few failed doctests (at least on my machine)? Is
there a good reason to use the 64 bit binaries when they are still
buggy and the 32-bit 10.5 ones seem to work fine?
--
D. M. Monarres
dmmonar...@gmail
Dear all,
I need to compute some larger powers of polynomials in characteristic
p>0. I've noticed that Sage does not do it very efficiently, as even
f^(p^n) takes a long time. I wrote the following code then:
# write m in base n (as vector):
# [v0, v1, ..., vk]
Dear all,
I see that "max" in Sage is not the "max" of Python:
=
Python 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Jan 4 2009, 21:59:32)
[GCC 4.3.2] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> v=[10,2,3,1,45]
>>> max(v)
45
==
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi William!
>
> On 19 Okt., 19:53, William Stein wrote:
>> Maybe we should change the name to "Save worksheet to a file..."?
>
> +1!
>
> Does the word "download" in English have a meaning different from "get
> data from the web"?
> My impre
Hi William!
On 19 Okt., 19:53, William Stein wrote:
> Maybe we should change the name to "Save worksheet to a file..."?
+1!
Does the word "download" in English have a meaning different from "get
data from the web"?
My impression is that Germans would use the word "download" only in
that sense
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:53 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Maybe we should change the name to "Save worksheet to a file..."?
+1
"Save worksheet to a file" is much more obvious in meaning.
--
Carlo Hamalainen
http://carlo-hamalainen.net
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To po
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Le Fou Volant
wrote:
>
> Thank you very much. That's the one thing I did not try
> (probably because at the time "download" could not mean
> what it seems to mean in "download to a file").
>
> Alexandre Guillaume
Maybe we should change the name to "Save workshee
Hi
I have installed sage 4.1.2 on a PowerBook 5.58 with MacOSX 10.4.11 a
cording to
the procedure detailed in the README.txt file.
The first time I run sage it tries to initialize the installation but
it fails with the error message
enclosed hereafter. I have tried twice to download the .dmg file
Thank you very much. That's the one thing I did not try
(probably because at the time "download" could not mean
what it seems to mean in "download to a file").
Alexandre Guillaume
On Oct 18, 6:10 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Le Fou Volant
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hel
Does SAGE support complex integration? This doesn't seem to work:
z = var('z')
integrate(1/z,z,-i,i)
It returns an error saying the lower limit needs to be real.
No rush,
Sterling
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups
Thanks for the response, kcrisman. The questions you ask are exactly
what I've
been pondering myself.
After much additional messing around, I found the problem (and its
solution):
the factor in front should be 2/a, not a/2:
sage: var('a, n, x')
(a, n, x)
sage: assume(a>0)
sage: assume(n,'int
Groebner bases seem to do this relatively quickly. Here's your last
example done in a crude way, seems almost instantaneous.
R. = PolynomialRing(QQ,order = TermOrder
('degrevlex',4)+TermOrder('degrevlex',3))
foo= (x0 + x1 + x2 + x3)^3
sym = []
xvars = [x0,x1,x2,x3]
for i in range(1,4):
temp
Thanks, either suggestion worked. I was doing this in my definite
integral function.
Robert, someone hacked my e-mail. I just sent you a new e-mail this
morning. I would really like to collaborate with you on the server,
if you are interested. We are doing very similar things. Do you have
tim
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Pierre wrote:
>
> Thanks. This works, but it is so very slow :
>
> sage: foo= (x0 + x1 + x2 + x3)^1;
> sage.libs.symmetrica.all.t_POLYNOM_ELMSYM( foo )
> e[1] #immediate
>
> sage: foo= (x0 + x1 + x2 + x3)^2;
> sage.libs.symmetrica.all.t_POLYNOM_ELMSYM( foo )
Thanks. This works, but it is so very slow :
sage: foo= (x0 + x1 + x2 + x3)^1;
sage.libs.symmetrica.all.t_POLYNOM_ELMSYM( foo )
e[1] #immediate
sage: foo= (x0 + x1 + x2 + x3)^2;
sage.libs.symmetrica.all.t_POLYNOM_ELMSYM( foo )
e[1, 1] #also immediate
sage: foo= (x0 + x1 + x2 + x3)^3;
sage.
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Pierre wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> i've got some polynomial which happens to be symmetrical. Is there a
> quick and easy way to write it in terms of elementary symmetric
> functions ?
Currently, it's not the most straightforward:
sage: e = SFAElementary(QQ)
sage:
hi,
i've got some polynomial which happens to be symmetrical. Is there a
quick and easy way to write it in terms of elementary symmetric
functions ?
i know there is no efficient way to do this for very large
polynomials, but this one is reasonable. I also remember implementing
exactly this in C+
On Oct 19, 1:02 am, Jim Clark wrote:
> Hi sage supporters,
>
> I am attempting to verify some properties of the quantum mechanics
> "particle in a box" problem.
> integral() is returning the wrong results for and .
> I can't figure out what I might be doing wrong.
>
> To find :
> ---
29 matches
Mail list logo
