Hi Robert,
It's surprising that we end up catching SyntaxErrors!
Isn't it? I'll try to make a reproducible example.
Yes, I think we could greatly reduce the number of exceptions caught.
At most, TypeError, NotImplementedError, and perhaps ValueError.
Great!
Also, I think I
On 03/11/2009 12:49 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
[snip]
In short: for = in, if it was just me, I would only use the most
absolutely trivial coercions. And in particular avoid there all the
coercions that involve projections and not embedding (like Z - Z/nZ)
Just my own feeling ...
Currently the rule is that if you can do arithmetic between two
elements, you can compare them. Membership code is something entirely
different.
Very mathematical... Is the imaginary i bigger or smaller than 1?
[snip]
Membership is much more lenient than coercion, for example, I would
Wish you had brought this up sooner. The other day I was looking at
that code and thinking oh, I could get rid of catching stuff there
but as it wasn't relevant to what I was doing at the time and I
didn't see any urgency it went on my todo later list. I'll put up a
patch soon.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 06:27:41PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
Currently the rule is that if you can do arithmetic between two
elements, you can compare them.
Ok, I am not used to it, but this seems fair enough.
Membership code is something entirely different.
I typically write
In short: for = in, if it was just me, I would only use the most
absolutely trivial coercions. And in particular avoid there all the
coercions that involve projections and not embedding (like Z - Z/nZ)
Just my own feeling ...
And mine.
Ralf
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 08:27:14AM +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
In short: for = in, if it was just me, I would only use the most
absolutely trivial coercions. And in particular avoid there all the
coercions that involve projections and not embedding (like Z - Z/nZ)
Just my own feeling
Dar all,
I'd rather fix the infrastructure if at all possible ...
It should be fairly simple to add a wipe option that kills all left
over pyc and so build remnants, but I personally tend to wipe out
build and just rebuild the Sage library if I can't manually fix it
in 2
Florent Hivert wrote:
Dar all,
I'd rather fix the infrastructure if at all possible ...
It should be fairly simple to add a wipe option that kills all left
over pyc and so build remnants, but I personally tend to wipe out
build and just rebuild the Sage library if I can't manually
On 03/10/09 16:41, Jason Grout wrote:
http://nb.hpfem.org/home/pub/16
I just installed FreeWRL and looked at this. Awesome! It looks like
this might be the best way to get good opengl graphics (and mayavi!) in
the sage notebook while we still wait on the possibility of an html
Tim Abbott wrote:
I'm guessing your issue is too old m4ri. Try upgrading to libm4ri-dev
from jaunty.
Thank you. Installing libm4ri-dev from jaunty allowed sagemath to be
built. After that, I needed to I needed to compile from source the
following packages:
lcalc
gfan
gap-guava
libcdd-test
R (Chandra) Chandrasekhar wrote:
Dear Folks,
I am on an AMD64 PC running Kubuntu Intrepid 8.04 and KDE4.2. The Linux
kernel is 2.6.27-11-generic.
I downloaded the source package sagemath_3.0.5dfsg-2ubuntu1 from the
jaunty archives and tried compiling it, after having installed other
Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote:
In short: for = in, if it was just me, I would only use the most
absolutely trivial coercions. And in particular avoid there all the
coercions that involve projections and not embedding (like Z - Z/nZ)
+1
I think the new coercion model in Sage is much too
On 11 Mrz., 14:06, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote:
Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote:
In short: for = in, if it was just me, I would only use the most
absolutely trivial coercions. And in particular avoid there all the
coercions that involve projections and not embedding (like Z -
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
On 11 Mrz., 14:06, Bill Page wrote:
I think the new coercion model in Sage is much too aggressive -
especially as applied when coding. As Ralf said: perhaps it makes
sense for interactive use. Would it be possible to enable/disable
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
Most of the errors caught are because it's trying to detect an
action, i.e. given a*b, it tries out a._rmul_(b) and, if successful,
registers that as an action, but otherwise goes on to try the next
thing.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr wrote:
I guess it all boils down to what are the convention for membership
testing, and how much freedom one has in implementing it.
Here are some typical options:
(1) x is in P if there is an element of P that is
It was great going to the Sage Days in San Diego and seeing the very
capable Sage crew including W.S.
I was curious about something the team said about a controversy
regarding something that I believe was called assumed or implicit
multiplication.
I think the controversy was whether to allow
John,
I think we should keep this discussion on-list so I am cc-ing sage-devel.
In answer to your question, yes, I have been using Sage on that
machine for ages and try to test builds on it whenever I can since it
often shows up some strange things. With 3.4.rc1 it works fince apart
from that
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM, seber...@spawar.navy.mil
seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
It was great going to the Sage Days in San Diego and seeing the very
capable Sage crew including W.S.
I was curious about something the team said about a controversy
regarding something that I believe
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 03:20:18AM -0500, Jason Grout wrote:
Wow, if the price tag on this feature is bumped up to that
So, is this what is being asked for:
* Whenever you build, compare the list of .pyc files and .so files in
the build directory with the list in the source
Some more oil for the fire...
sage: K=NumberField(x^2+1, 'a'); K
Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^2 + 1
sage: a = K.0
sage: a
a
sage: a*a
-1
sage: a1
False
sage: a1
True
sage: 1a
False
sage: 1a
True
sage: version()
'Sage Version 3.3, Release Date: 2009-02-21'
Do I do something wrong
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Ralf Hemmecke r...@hemmecke.de wrote:
Some more oil for the fire...
sage: K=NumberField(x^2+1, 'a'); K
Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^2 + 1
sage: a = K.0
sage: a
a
sage: a*a
-1
sage: a1
False
sage: a1
True
sage: 1a
False
sage: 1a
How many places is this used? In my (fairly fresh) Sage session,
there are only 9 actions in the action cache (on matrices, number
fields, and polynomials). I'd be willing to write the _get_action_
methods for these cases, if it would help kill off some of the excess
error catching in
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Florent Hivert
florent.hiv...@univ-rouen.fr wrote:
Then x in P means that there is a safe conversion from the parent of
x to P. If this is actually a coercion, then you don't even have to
run it; if it's a conversion, then you do have to run it, to test that
Hi all,
we do not seem to understand each other well enough (especially Bill
and me). Yet. :-) Let's try an analogy. When compiling C code, you can
tell the compiler to silently skip over warnings; or to print out
verbose warnings, but to continue; or to treat all warnings like
errors and stop.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Georg S. Weber
georgswe...@googlemail.com wrote:
But would you find it helpful to have the possibility to let it act
either as gracefully as possible, or to print out verbose
warnings (coercions have costs, so if the costs are higher than a
specific amount,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Georg S. Weber
georgswe...@googlemail.com wrote:
But would you find it helpful to have the possibility to let it act
either as gracefully as possible, or to print out verbose
warnings (coercions have costs,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
This sounds potentially very useful; but option 3 (do a strict subset
of coercions/conversions, and stop otherwise) is also tricky to
implement. For instance, if
On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 03:20:18AM -0500, Jason Grout wrote:
Wow, if the price tag on this feature is bumped up to that
So, is this what is being asked for:
* Whenever you build, compare the list of .pyc files and .so files in
the
Hi,
I know there was some script to debug import times, but I just cannot
find it anymore. Robert Kern wrote something similar recently:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.enthought.devel/20077
and neither he could find the Sage script for it. Can someone please
point us in the right
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
Hi,
I know there was some script to debug import times, but I just cannot
find it anymore. Robert Kern wrote something similar recently:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.enthought.devel/20077
and neither he
and neither he could find the Sage script for it. Can someone please
point us in the right direction? :)
sage -startuptime
(implemented in $SAGE_ROOT/local/bin/sage-startuptime.py)
That's it, thanks a lot! I was blind.
Ondrej
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post
Carl
Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm
curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was
feared it was error prone?
Chris
On Mar 11, 11:36 am, Carl Witty carl.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM, seber...@spawar.navy.mil
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:52 PM, seber...@spawar.navy.mil
seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm
curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was
feared it was error prone?
It's also not valid Python syntax, and
Mike Hansen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:52 PM, seber...@spawar.navy.mil
seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm
curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was
feared it was error prone?
It's also not valid
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:52:31PM -0800, Carl Witty wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Georg S. Weber
georgswe...@googlemail.com wrote:
But would you find it helpful to have the possibility to let it act
either as gracefully as possible, or to print out verbose
warnings (coercions
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:07:35AM -0800, Carl Witty wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr wrote:
I guess it all boils down to what are the convention for membership
testing, and how much freedom one has in implementing it.
Here are some
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:07:35AM -0800, Carl Witty wrote:
If you want (4), I think you should just write x.parent() == P (or if
you know that P is unique, x.parent() is P).
Yup. The question is: am I
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
...
Does this mean you want GF(5)(3)*2 and RR(pi)*2 to fail? These
currently work due to coercions that would be unsafe according to my
definition.
The __mul__ method exported by GF(5) could accept integers as well as
elements of GF(5),
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.orgwrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
...
Does this mean you want GF(5)(3)*2 and RR(pi)*2 to fail? These
currently work due to coercions that would be unsafe according to my
definition.
The
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:13 PM, David Roe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Bill Page wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
...
Does this mean you want GF(5)(3)*2 and RR(pi)*2 to fail? These
currently work due to coercions that would be unsafe according to my
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 at 04:52PM -0700, seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm
curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was
feared it was error prone?
I've written Mathematica notebooks for multivariable calculus
seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Carl
Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm
curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was
feared it was error prone?
Along with the other reasons people are giving, it may be helpful to
remember that it is
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.comwrote:
seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Carl
Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm
curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was
feared it was error prone?
Along
Alex Ghitza wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
seber...@spawar.navy.mil mailto:seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Carl
Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach.
Jason Grout wrote:
Alex Ghitza wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
seber...@spawar.navy.mil mailto:seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Carl
Mathematica seems to have been successful
Wow, this thread has generated a lot of discussion! :)
On Mar 11, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
Some more oil for the fire...
sage: K=NumberField(x^2+1, 'a'); K
Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^2 + 1
sage: a = K.0
sage: a
a
sage: a*a
-1
sage: a1
False
sage: a1
On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Dear Carl,
The paragraph you quoted was part of a very rough proposal for a way
that Sage's coercion might be changed in the future; it's definitely
not how it works now.
My apologies for missing this.
Also, the way coercion is
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Alex Ghitza aghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com
wrote:
seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Carl
Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm
curious what were the reasons
On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Alex Ghitza wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com
wrote:
seber...@spawar.navy.mil mailto:seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Carl
Mathematica seems to have
On Mar 11, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Bill Page wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
On 11 Mrz., 14:06, Bill Page wrote:
I think the new coercion model in Sage is much too aggressive -
especially as applied when coding. As Ralf said: perhaps it makes
sense for
Jaap Spies wrote:
Jason Grout wrote:
Alex Ghitza wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
seber...@spawar.navy.mil mailto:seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Carl
Mathematica seems to
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
Along with the other reasons people are giving, it may be
helpful to
remember that it is may be less error-prone in MMA. For example,
parentheses in Sage can denote function calling as well as
grouping,
while they only denote grouping in MMA.
On Mar 11, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:07:35AM -0800, Carl Witty wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr wrote:
I guess it all boils down to what are the convention for membership
testing, and how much
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 at 08:50PM -0700, William Stein wrote:
sage: !math
Mathematica 6.0 for Linux x86 (64-bit)
Copyright 1988-2007 Wolfram Research, Inc.
In[1]:= sin(x)
Out[1]= sin x
On a similar note, we have this:
sage: !math
Mathematica 6.0 for Linux x86 (64-bit)
Copyright
William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Alex Ghitza aghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com
wrote:
seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote:
Carl
Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm
curious what
Jason Grout wrote:
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
Internal consistency is good, but consistency with the vast body of
mathematical literature out there is pretty valuable as well.
Yes, that is one reason why I am for having all multiplications denoted
by *. Most students are familiar with
OK, my last post on this tread for a while, I promise :).
On Mar 11, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Bill Page wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:13 PM, David Roe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Bill Page wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
...
Does this mean you want
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
Here's some examples to hopefully clarify:
RealField(20) - RealField(50)
RealField(20) - RealIntervalField(20)
I would call these dangerous, as the latter implicitly has more
information than the former.
Folks,
I have one suggestion for the Sage Tutorial.
In Section 2.3, after the text
==
sage: def is_even(n):
... return n%2 == 0
==
I suggest that you add an instruction to press [Enter/Return/Newline]
after the
... return n%2 == 0
to conclude the definition.
When I followed
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:55 PM, R (Chandra) Chandrasekhar
chyav...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
I have one suggestion for the Sage Tutorial.
In Section 2.3, after the text
==
sage: def is_even(n):
... return n%2 == 0
==
I suggest that you add an instruction to press
62 matches
Mail list logo
