Re: [sage-devel] python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread 'Julien Puydt' via sage-devel
Hi, Le 13/10/2017 à 17:56, Frédéric Chapoton a écrit : > Cool, no ? Or maybe nobody cares ? Extremely cool! > Many things are still not working. The cmp problem has been much > reduced, but still not fully fixed. On our way is a large-scale unicode > problem, and maybe another large scale hash

[sage-devel] Re: python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread Dima Pasechnik
Given http://www.python3statement.org/ lists a number of crucial Sage dependencies to drop py2 on or before 2020, there is little choice. :-) In fact, I think we should get Sage added to that list too, and get to work on py3 in the earnest. On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:56:11 PM UTC+1,

Re: [sage-devel] python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread Jori Mäntysalo
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: Cool, no ? Or maybe nobody cares ? Cool, yes! -- Jori Mäntysalo

Re: [sage-devel] Issues installing the optional "libhomfly" package

2017-10-13 Thread Dima Pasechnik
It's fixed for OSX now, it's the packaging (and the necessary for OSX, as it turns out, update to Boehm GC package). https://github.com/dimpase/libhomfly On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:29:46 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > Now it's down to doing something with fmemopen call there, that

[sage-devel] Re: python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread Nils Bruin
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:56:11 PM UTC+2, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: > > Hello, > > I have reached this point with the ugly python3 experimental branch > "public/python3-experiment-8.1.b7": > > > ┌┐ > │ SageMath version

[sage-devel] Re: python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread John H Palmieri
That's great! Thank you for all of your work on this. John On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:56:11 AM UTC-7, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: > > Hello, > > I have reached this point with the ugly python3 experimental branch > "public/python3-experiment-8.1.b7": > > >

[sage-devel] python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread Frédéric Chapoton
Hello, I have reached this point with the ugly python3 experimental branch "public/python3-experiment-8.1.b7": ┌┐ │ SageMath version 8.1.beta7, Release Date: 2017-10-03 │ │ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread Simon Brandhorst
{{{ sage: L. = CyclotomicField(5) sage: OL= L.ring_of_integers() sage: OL Maximal Order in Cyclotomic Field of order 5 and degree 4 sage: M=Matrix(OL,2,[1-a,0,a,1+a]) sage: a.parent() Cyclotomic Field of order 5 and degree 4 sage: a*M

[sage-devel] Re: Graphs: Hamiltonian path vs. cycle

2017-10-13 Thread Jori Mäntysalo
More generally relating on this... I think that currently we have 1) Deterministic function to find the longest path of a graph. 2) "Usually fast" randomized function to find the longest path. Is this true? And what about functions to find longest cycle or to check if the graph is

Re: [sage-devel] Re: patchbot server down

2017-10-13 Thread Erik Bray
I'm sorry you spent any time on it... Like I said, I was working on it :) Fixed now. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: > I have failed to find the issue.. > > > Le vendredi 13 octobre 2017 10:29:03 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit : >> >>

[sage-devel] Re: patchbot server down

2017-10-13 Thread Frédéric Chapoton
I have failed to find the issue.. Le vendredi 13 octobre 2017 10:29:03 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit : > > https://patchbot.sagemath.org/ gives an Internal Server Error right > now. Some pages work, such as the build pages for individual tickets, > but others are just screaming. > > I'll look into

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread John Cremona
On 13 October 2017 at 08:37, Simon Brandhorst wrote: > The testsuite runs now. A long list of rings would be helpful. > > Some Pids i care about: > ZZ[\zeta_n] of degree <= 20, (they are in fact euclidean) > QQ(\sqrt(d)) of class number one. > F[x] for F any field. (probably

[sage-devel] patchbot server down

2017-10-13 Thread Erik Bray
https://patchbot.sagemath.org/ gives an Internal Server Error right now. Some pages work, such as the build pages for individual tickets, but others are just screaming. I'll look into it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread Simon Brandhorst
The testsuite runs now. A long list of rings would be helpful. Some Pids i care about: ZZ[\zeta_n] of degree <= 20, (they are in fact euclidean) QQ(\sqrt(d)) of class number one. F[x] for F any field. (probably these are not really working well enough) More ideas? On Friday, October 13,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread Simon Brandhorst
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24027 In order to do good testing. Do we have a nice list of PIDs? On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:07:00 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote: > > Yep, adding doc tests over other rings is the minimum requirement. I can > do that. > Yet I would print a warning

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread Simon Brandhorst
Yep, adding doc tests over other rings is the minimum requirement. I can do that. Yet I would print a warning message for some time. I would expect some bugs to be leftover in any case. -- Simon On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:35:14 PM UTC+2, William wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm really happy to