On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 5/10/12 10:54 AM, arshpreet singh wrote:
>>
>> hello sage-usrs. cheers :)
>>
>> please give me the link of the tutorials which explain about the
>> "using sage single cell server code in webpages"
>>
>
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/ho
Hi!
By some random experiments I discovered the following weirdness:
sage: bool(piInfinity)
True
So far it seems that pi < Infinity is the only misbehaving comparison:
sage: bool(pi<2*pi)
True
sage: bool(2*pihttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
The package seemed to compile, but at the end after running internal checks and
cleaning up, it gave me the following message:
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/local/sage/sage-x.y.z./spkg'
/usr/local/sage/sage-x.y.z./spkg/pipestatus "sage-spkg ${SAGE_SPKG_OPTS}
extcode-4.8 2>&1" "tee -a /usr/lo
On Friday, May 11, 2012 2:39:55 AM UTC-4, Keshav Kini wrote:
>
> > The mechanism seems to be broken. Actually, the mechanism that compares
> boolean
> > expressions seems to be broken, which means that assumptions don't work
> right,
> > either.
>
> Relevant: #11309, a ticket I worked on a b
On Friday, May 11, 2012 4:58:53 PM UTC+8, Robert Samal wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> By some random experiments I discovered the following weirdness:
>
> sage: bool(pi False
> sage: bool(pi>Infinity)
> True
>
This looks like a bad bug. I think you can open tickets for things like
this without announcing
On 05/11/12 09:23, kcrisman wrote:
>
> I've updated the ticket with this. There is still some discussion
> there, a year old, about nested expressions... once again, the perfect
> has become the enemy of fixing at all.
>
I haven't looked at this closely, but why not just open another ticket
for
On Friday, May 11, 2012 11:49:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 05/11/12 09:23, kcrisman wrote:
> >
> > I've updated the ticket with this. There is still some discussion
> > there, a year old, about nested expressions... once again, the perfect
> > has become the enemy of fixing at
Did we ever decide on a standard label for mathematically incorrect
results? This shouldn't drop under the radar.
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:37 AM, P Purkayastha wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, May 11, 2012 4:58:53 PM UTC+8, Robert Samal wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> By some random experiments I discovered the f
On Friday, May 11, 2012 3:34:26 PM UTC-4, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> Did we ever decide on a standard label for mathematically incorrect
> results? This shouldn't drop under the radar.
>
>
There is the "stopgap" terminology, but that's not what we called the
incorrect result, that's for the s
Yeah, stopgap refers to the other ticket in case the bug is hard to
fix. How about "bogus" or "badmath"?
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:06 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, May 11, 2012 3:34:26 PM UTC-4, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> Did we ever decide on a standard label for mathematically incorrec
On Friday, May 11, 2012 2:55:19 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> Yeah, stopgap refers to the other ticket in case the bug is hard to
> fix. How about "bogus" or "badmath"?
>
How about "blocker"? :)
--
John
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubs
It's no longer (necessarily) a blocker once a stopgap has been assigned.
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, May 11, 2012 2:55:19 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, stopgap refers to the other ticket in case the bug is hard to
>> fix. How about "bogu
12 matches
Mail list logo
