[sage-support] Trouble building development version

I just downloaded the sage-8.0.beta10 tarball, unpacked it, and typed 'make'. After a short interval, I got the error message below. What am I doing wrong? -- David make[1]: Entering directory `/storage/masiao/sage-8.0.beta10/build/make' make -j48 base make[2]: Entering directory `/storage/masiao

Re: [sage-support] Trouble building development version

This is on a local disk. David On 15 June 2017 at 18:01, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > looks like some NFS-related trouble to me. Can you try building on a local > disk? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-support" group. > To unsubscribe from th

Re: [sage-support] Trouble building development version

hanks! David On 16 June 2017 at 08:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2017-06-15 17:48, David Loeffler wrote: > >> I just downloaded the sage-8.0.beta10 tarball, unpacked it, and typed >> 'make'. After a short interval, I got the error message below. What am I >&

Re: [sage-support] possible bug with finitely generated modules over PIDs

Which Sage version are you using? This example works fine for me (under Sage v6.7) On 5 June 2015 at 20:50, David Perkinson wrote: > sage: m = matrix([[2,-1,-1],[-1,2,-1],[-1,-1,2]]) > sage: Q = ZZ^3/m.row_space() > sage: Q.0 > (1, 0) > sage: Q.1 > (0, 1) > sage: m = matrix([[3,-1,-1,-1],[-1,3,

Re: [sage-support] Help needed with getting PARI/GP residue fields in Sage finite field form

There are two reasons why people work with non-maximal orders: because they're actually interested in their arithmetic; or (more often) because they're working with examples where the discriminant is too large to efficiently factor. Which is the case in your problem? In the example you give, you're

Re: [sage-support] Help needed with getting PARI/GP residue fields in Sage finite field form

ationOrder(K.defining_polynomial(),'alpha'), take > a p-maximal order there and then do what you are suggesting? Although, > actually, I don't know if sage can calculate a p-maximal order of a given > order. > > Misja > > > > On Thursday, 17 March 2016 15:50:59 U

Re: [sage-support] Help needed with getting PARI/GP residue fields in Sage finite field form

the min poly of b and factorising it mod 7. Amusingly, the factorisation of the minimal polynomial turns out to be sage: b.minpoly().change_ring(GF(7)).factor() (x + 2) * (x + 3) * (x + 4) * (x + 5) * (x + 6) David On 26 March 2016 at 14:53, David Loeffler wrote: > Dear Misja, > > What

Re: [sage-support] Mysterious behaviour of q_eigenform... Bug?

What happens if you run the bad code, then run "ModularSymbols_clear_cache()", then the good code? Do you get the same discrepancy? David On 28 April 2016 at 15:16, Misja wrote: > Thank you very much! I didn't know sage-nt existed :-) > > Misja > > On Thursday, 28 April 2016 15:13:20 UTC+1, Joh

Re: [sage-support] Cleaning temporary/easily generated files from ~/.sage

You can pretty much freely kill anything other than the "sage_notebook.sagenb" subdirectory -- the rest is just cache files, logs, command-line history, etc. The notebook subdirectory is important, because it contains your saved worksheets (if you use the sage notebook) -- if you use sage purely fr

Re: [sage-support] generate latex from symbolic expression without \;

+1. I don't like this behaviour and I've never understood why it's the default. (Why on earth does Sage insist on overriding LaTeX's very carefully tuned spacing settings? Do we think we know more about typography than TeX's designers?) David On 9 April 2013 09:55, shersonb wrote: > As it stands

Re: [sage-support] While computing Smith normal form, I got bitten

Hi Saul, This is a consistent design decision across Sage: when you invert a ring element, it automatically returns the inverse as an element of the fraction field. E.g. sage: a = ZZ(1) sage: a.parent() Integer Ring sage: b = ~a sage: b.parent() Rational Field Same with polynomials, power series

Re: [sage-support] rank of elliptic curves

I tried this example myself and got a similar failure. The error message is not very informative, but what's happening is that PARI-GP (which Simon's 2-descent script uses) is raising an error, because the fundamental units of the number fields coming up in the 2-descent calculation are too big for

[sage-support] Re: Sorting a list of number field elements

Dear Emil, There's a bit of a tug of war going on with comparison for number field elements. On the one hand, it should always be possible to compare two elements of a given number field, and the resulting ordering should be a total order and one that's deterministic and quick to compute. On th

[sage-support] Re: Sorting a list of number field elements

On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:26:35 UTC, David Loeffler wrote: > > This doesn't really answer your question, of course. If you really do want > to sort according to a given real embedding and you don't want to be > trapped by numerical precision issues, then the right tool

Re: [sage-support] An AA field bug

On Thursday, 22 March 2012 12:23:50 UTC, William wrote: > > > > There is now a patch up, waiting for somebody to review it! > > William > Done. -- David -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from

Re: [sage-support] Re: Sorting a list of number field elements

On Wednesday, 21 March 2012 16:42:27 UTC, Emil wrote: > > Hi David, thanks for your reply! > > I was wondering if there is a way to automatically get the desired > embedding into AA. [snip] Do you think it is worth me making a > ticket for this? > That's more or less what the ticket 12715 I o

[sage-support] QQbar and CyclotomicField

I think this is another aspect of the bug that came up under "sorting a list of number field elements" yesterday: number fields with embeddings should know how to map themselves into Qqbar and AA, but they don't. This is on trac: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12715. -- To post to t

[sage-support] Re: how to construct a splitting field of a polynomial

Dear Ben, I'm afraid that Sage's number field functionality uses PARI heavily, and the PARI guys have made a policy decision not to try and support number fields defined by polynomials that aren't integral or aren't monic. This is one of the oldest tickets in the Sage bug tracker (http://trac.

[sage-support] www.sagenb.org dead?

The sagenb.org public notebook server seems to be having issues -- I can log in and open worksheets, but as soon as I try to run any Sage commands, nothing happens. Any idea what's going on there? -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this gro

[sage-support] Re: Subfields of finite fields

On Sunday, 8 April 2012 08:43:03 UTC+1, P Purkayastha wrote: > > According to sage/rings/finite_rings/finite_field_givaro.py it seems it is > not implemented? There have been at least two attempts to implement this; see #8335, and more recently, #11938. Sadly both of these are "needs work". I

[sage-support] Re: holomorphic cusp forms for Hecke Triangle groups

On Saturday, 14 April 2012 21:37:50 UTC-4, crown...@gmail.com wrote: > > Is it possible to compute the fourier coefficients for holomorphic cusp > forms for Hecke triangle groups using SAGE? Not as far as I'm aware (with the obvious exception of the (2, 3, infinity) triangle group, better know

Re: [sage-support] Re: Determining if a ring has any non-trivial idempotents

On 18 April 2012 15:50, diophan wrote: > I'll check out the reference. If it makes the situation any better the ring > is a quotient of a polynomial ring over a finite field. If it's a quotient of a one-variable polynomial ring, you can just factor the defining polynomial, can't you? The quotient

Re: [sage-support] IntegerVectors question

The size of this set is the binomial coefficient (m + n - 1) choose ( n - 1 ). David On 17 May 2012 14:26, Martin Albrecht wrote: > Hi, > > currently when running e.g. > > sage: IV53 = IntegerVectors(5,3) # length 3 vectors that sum to 5 > sage: IV53.cardinality() > > The algorithm is simply to

Re: [sage-support] Eigenspaces for modular forms

On 13 June 2012 15:25, Sam Chow wrote: > I want to consider eigenspaces of S1 = > CuspForms(Gamma0(N),k).new_subspace(), but only for repeated > eigenvalues. Dear Sam, One possibility you might like to try is to "work solely over QQ" by doing the following. Rather than working with eigenvalues a

Re: [sage-support] Re: Eigenspaces for modular forms

On 20 June 2012 15:23, Sam Chow wrote: > Thanks for the reply, David. Your suggestions work well, in that I seem to > end up with an exact result most of the time and a close result otherwise > (compared to some weight 2 data by Stein). > > I'll try to describe how the imprecision comes about. Say

Re: [sage-support] Re: Eigenspaces for modular forms

On 21 June 2012 01:01, Sam Chow wrote: > Dear David, > > The Sturm bound tells us how many coefficients we need to check before we > know that two modular forms are the same (if the first B Fourier > coefficients are the same then they're all the same). Maeda's conjecture > tells us that we only n

Re: [sage-support] multiplication of modular forms over gamma1 error on sagenb

On 26 June 2012 08:39, winter wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to run the following on the online sagenb server > (http://www.sagenb.org): > > f = ModularForms(Gamma1(5),2).0 > f*f > > I am getting an error: > [...] > > Am I doing something wrong? > No, Sage is doing something wrong. The code for mul

Re: [sage-support] Calculate discrimanent of relative number fields

On 29 August 2012 12:54, Cindy wrote: > Hi, > > Given a cyclotomic field Q(zeta_n), where zeta_n is a primitive nth root of > unity, with maximal real subfield F, how can I calculate the discriminant of > K/F? You need to use the "relativize" command to create the field extension K / F. Here's an

Re: [sage-support] Dual of an ideal

What exactly do you mean by the dual of an ideal? Do you mean dual with respect to the trace pairing, so the dual of the ideal (1) is the inverse different? David On 4 September 2012 04:15, Cindy wrote: > Hi, > > How can I calculate the dual of an ideal using sage? > > Thanks. > > Cindy > > -- >

Re: [sage-support] Dual of an ideal

On 5 September 2012 02:41, Cindy wrote: > Hi, David, > > Yes, that's what I mean. Can I find it using sage? > > Thanks. > > Cindy sage: K. = NumberField(x^3 - x + 17) sage: I = K.primes_above(17)[0] sage: K.trace_dual_basis(I.basis()) [4/132583*z^2 + 6/7799*z + 2597/132583, -153/7799*z^2 - 2/7799

Re: [sage-support] Generator matrix of ideal lattice

On 5 September 2012 02:56, Cindy wrote: > Hi, > > Let K be a number field and O_k denote its ring of integers. For an ideal, J > of O_k, we can have an ideal lattice (I,b_\alpha), where > > b_\alpha: J\times J \to Z, b_\alpha(x,y)=Tr(\alpha xy), \forall x,y \in J > > and \alpha is a totally positi

Re: [sage-support] Dual of an ideal

On 5 September 2012 09:34, Cindy wrote: > Hi, David, > > Could you please explain a little bit about the code? Sure, but you should make a little effort to play with it yourself for a bit first. > For the example you use, it seems I is an ideal above 17, what does [0] > mean? The command K.prim

Re: [sage-support] Minimum norm of an ideal lattice

> how can I get the minimum norm for the > ideal lattice (J,\alpha) using sage? What have you tried so far? David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com. To unsubscrib

Re: [sage-support] Minimum norm of an ideal lattice

graduate linear algebra notes a bit more carefully. Regards, David Loeffler On 6 September 2012 10:38, Cindy wrote: > BTW, the generator matrix I used for the previous example is > [1 2] > [3 4] > > Thanks. > > Cindy > > > On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 7:31:48 PM UT

Re: [sage-support] Minimum norm of an ideal lattice

On 6 September 2012 13:28, Cindy wrote: > Hi, David, > > Thanks for your explanation about the minimize function in sage. I didn't > realize it's only for differentiable functions. > > For the stuff regarding lattice, I think there may be some misunderstanding > here. > > What I want is to find th

Re: [sage-support] Minimum norm of an ideal lattice

PS. Apologies for my apparent inability to compute the determinant of a 2x2 integer matrix correctly! David On 6 September 2012 14:03, David Loeffler wrote: > On 6 September 2012 13:28, Cindy wrote: >> Hi, David, >> >> Thanks for your explanation about the minimize funct

Re: [sage-support] Field automorphism, root r1 as function of r2

On 16 September 2012 05:29, Jori Mantysalo wrote: > For example x^3-3*x-1 has Galois group C_3, and galois_group(type="pari") > can tell it. But how to get roots as function of others? In this example, if > r1 is one of the roots, others are r^2-r-2 and -r^2+2. sage: K. = NumberField(x^3-3*x-1) s