On Dec 15, 5:49 pm, Michael Fawcett wrote:
> I am having problems compiling Sage on the following setup:
>
> ASUS K52J laptop with Intel Core I3 processor with 4G RAM running Windows 7
> VirtualBox 4.1.6
> Guest OS Ubuntu 11.10 desktop (i386) with 1933 M RAM allocated. VirtualBox
> guest additio
Is that just the first error in your log or does the compilation really
stop there? Atlas tests out different CPU instructions, some of which are
not supported by an i3 and will lead to an illegal instruction error. This
is normal.
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegro
I am having problems compiling Sage on the following setup:
ASUS K52J laptop with Intel Core I3 processor with 4G RAM running Windows 7
VirtualBox 4.1.6
Guest OS Ubuntu 11.10 desktop (i386) with 1933 M RAM allocated. VirtualBox
guest additions have been installed
The install fails during the inst
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2011-12-15 22:45, William Stein wrote:
>> This is a bug in Sage
> It's not really a bug, it is more of a misfeature[1].
I'm confused, because I think it's a straight up bug. The error
message says there are uncommitted changes. However
On 2011-12-15 22:45, William Stein wrote:
> This is a bug in Sage
It's not really a bug, it is more of a misfeature[1]. It is *intented*
behaviour with unfortunate consequences.
[1] http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/misfeature.html
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.c
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Anthony Wickstead
wrote:
> I am trying to upgrade my Sage 4.7.1 installation using "./sage -
> upgrade" [and also using "upgrade()" from within sage]. After checking
> mirrors, telling me that six packages will be upgraded and warning me
> that it could take hours
On Dec 15, 11:26 am, Chris Seberino wrote:
> I had it turned on but I guess it doesn't get triggered for x (x -1).
> Any way to change the behavior or
> does that require a patch to Sage?
You've already discussed that:
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/e67a869f71140c
On Dec 15, 2:26 pm, Chris Seberino wrote:
> I had it turned on but I guess it doesn't get triggered for x (x -1).
Even when you turn it on, the behavior is not uniform as the user
might expect, though there is a logic.
sage: implicit_multiplication(10)
sage: (x) (x-1)
(x - 1)*x
sage: x (x-1)
x
Hi,
I am using Sage to pass elements between gp and Magma. It works just
fine, except for the messages on the standard output.
My version of gp should print some timings, but when I call it through
SAGE, this doesn't work.
I believe this behavior is ruled by interfaces/gp.py, but I am not
experi
I had it turned on but I guess it doesn't get triggered for x (x -1).
Any way to change the behavior or
does that require a patch to Sage?
On Dec 15, 1:37 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 12/15/11 1:31 AM, Chris Seberino wrote:
>
> > I know Sage has some issues with a variable in front of parens when
Hi all,
I'm glad to inform you about new release 0.37 (2011-Dec-15):
OpenOpt (numerical optimization):
IPOPT initialization time gap (time till first iteration) for
FuncDesigner models has been decreased
Some improvements and bugfixes for interalg, especially for
"search all SNLE solution
I am trying to upgrade my Sage 4.7.1 installation using "./sage -
upgrade" [and also using "upgrade()" from within sage]. After checking
mirrors, telling me that six packages will be upgraded and warning me
that it could take hours, the upgrade aborts with the message "There
are uncommitted change
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Albert Heinle
wrote:
> Hello Sage-Team,
>
> a friend of mine and I have found a bug today in sage in the algorithm for
> computing the minimum spanning tree.
>
> We are using Sage Version 4.7, Release Date: 2011-05-23 on a mac with OS X
> Snow Leopard.
>
> Here i
I have a Boolean Function f which I know is not balanced. In fact f=0
with probability 1/4. If I use the function f.is_balanced() it tells
me that the function is not balanced, which is fine.
But is there a function which will tell me the what the probability of
a Boolean function being zero is ? I
On 2011-12-14 18:56, John H Palmieri wrote:
> (although I think this never uses JSMath, in case you wanted that).
Yes, I did mean JSMath. I have an idea on how to fix this, see #12156.
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send emai
15 matches
Mail list logo
