My vote is for an Overflow exception. Certainly doing nothing is not
good.
Victor
On Aug 4, 3:05 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Victor Miller
> wrote:
> > There's a real bug in Cython. It looks like it's some sort of parsing bug.
> > Consider the following prog
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Victor Miller wrote:
> There's a real bug in Cython. It looks like it's some sort of parsing bug.
> Consider the following program:
>
>
> def Check(P,x):
> Q = 2**(1+len(x))*P
> R = P
> for _ in range(1+len(x)):
> R = 2*R
> if Q != R:
>
There's a real bug in Cython. It looks like it's some sort of parsing bug.
Consider the following program:
def Check(P,x):
Q = 2**(1+len(x))*P
R = P
for _ in range(1+len(x)):
R = 2*R
if Q != R:
print "Check: Got it!, Q=",Q," R=",R
else:
print "Ok"
def
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:17 AM, max flander wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I'm not sure if you remember me, I was at the Sage days in Leiden last year.
>>
>> I was hoping you could help me with a question. I need to compute Z bases of
>> weight 2 cusp forms. I've noticed that the modular forms you get
I'll see what I can do about getting that. To give a little more
detail, I then wrote the following function:
def manydouble(P,n):
for _ in range(n):
P = 2*P
return P
and changed the statement
if Q1 = 2**(1+len(z))*P1:
print "Hooray"
to
if Q = manydouble(P1,1+len(z)):
I don't know the answer (I was not involved at all in implementing any
of this in Sage), though I suspect that the answer is "yes", so I am
copying sage-support in case someone else knows.
John
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:17 AM, max flander wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I'm not sure if you remember me, I w
On Thursday, August 4, 2011 8:37:38 AM UTC+1, mjs wrote:
>
> That does it thanks. But (a) do those checks not matter? And (b) is
> there an easy way to set it on a per-spkg basis?
>
You can install individual spkgs with sage -f after you finished
installing Sage.
--
To post to this group,
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Victor Miller wrote:
> Good news (so far) -- I tracked down the source of the bug. I had a long
> calculation (the details of which are irrelevant) which produced a pair of
> points on an elliptic curve, say P1 and P2, over a finite field of the form
> GF(2^n). In
That does it thanks. But (a) do those checks not matter? And (b) is
there an easy way to set it on a per-spkg basis?
On Aug 3, 9:58 pm, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2011 5:18:02 PM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> > Don't set SAGE_CHECK.
>
> Or at least don't set it when build
