Le 16/04/2019 à 09:58, jplab a écrit :
Le vendredi 12 avril 2019 06:41:50 UTC+2, John H Palmieri a écrit :
Can you provide details of how you created the polyhedron? As David said,
Q.vertices() should make a copy before returning the result, and I would
like to recreate this so I can fix it.
On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 8:35:27 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
> I think it's any sparse matrix, not just sparse matrices over SR.
>
> sage: m = matrix(3, [1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3], sparse=True)
> sage: exp(m) # hits the bug
>
> Indeed. That's because m.exp() first changes the ring
On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 8:30:13 PM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, Brian Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is this a bug?
>>
>> Looks like it. The problem seems to be that "sparse matrices over SR"
> aren't special cased the way dense matrices are
On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, Brian Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
> Is this a bug?
>
> Looks like it. The problem seems to be that "sparse matrices over SR"
aren't special cased the way dense matrices are (and a diagonal matrix is
constructed as sparse:
sage: D=diagonal_matrix([1, 2,
The code
sage: D = diagonal_matrix([1, 2, 3])
sage: exp(D)
produces
RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded while calling a Python object
Is this a bug?
The code
sage: D = matrix(3, [1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3])
sage: exp(D)
produces the expected result.
--
You received this
On 16.04.19 17:26, Nils Bruin wrote:
> Do you want to test that you get *that* string representation back?
> Or do you want to check that you are getting string representations of
> that shape, but with possibly differently order frozensets?
> Or do you want to check that you get a list back with
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 5:20 PM Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> On 16.04.19 14:04, E. Madison Bray wrote:
> > So if anyone wants to contribute hardware to work as runners, I can
> > walk them through the setup process now that I've done it myself.
> > It's quite easy for the most part.
>
> I can set-up
On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 8:16:29 AM UTC-7, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> On 16.04.19 16:56, John H Palmieri wrote:
> > Is the printed order important? If not, you can change the doctest to
> > something else that is actually testing something relevant [...]
>
> Changing the doctest really an
On 16.04.19 14:04, E. Madison Bray wrote:
> So if anyone wants to contribute hardware to work as runners, I can
> walk them through the setup process now that I've done it myself.
> It's quite easy for the most part.
I can set-up one. FYI, I have once created a runner for a different
(local)
On 16.04.19 16:56, John H Palmieri wrote:
> Is the printed order important? If not, you can change the doctest to
> something else that is actually testing something relevant [...]
Changing the doctest really an option here, as we want to see the
transistions of the automaton which are display
On 16.04.19 16:59, E. Madison Bray wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM Daniel Krenn wrote:
>> sage: from IPython.lib.pretty import pretty
>> sage: pretty(frozenset([frozenset(['A', 'B']), frozenset(['B', 'C'])]))
>>
>> displays the set of sets with random order. How to deal with this?
> Yes,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> In Python2-SageMath we have
>
> sage: frozenset([frozenset(['A', 'B']), frozenset(['B', 'C'])])
> frozenset({frozenset({'B', 'C'}), frozenset({'A', 'B'})})
>
> in all my trials, whereas in Python3 we get all possible permutations of
> the
Is the printed order important? If not, you can change the doctest to
something else that is actually testing something relevant, maybe like
sage: 'B' in frozenset()
True
or
sage: (define the frozenset S somehow)
sage: S == frozenset(['A', 'B', 'C'])
True
Or if
In Python2-SageMath we have
sage: frozenset([frozenset(['A', 'B']), frozenset(['B', 'C'])])
frozenset({frozenset({'B', 'C'}), frozenset({'A', 'B'})})
in all my trials, whereas in Python3 we get all possible permutations of
the elements at random.
Even using
sage: from IPython.lib.pretty import
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:22 PM E. Madison Bray wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:11 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:04 E. Madison Bray, wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> GitLab work is still going and any help would be appreciated. The
> >> biggest
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:11 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:04 E. Madison Bray, wrote:
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> GitLab work is still going and any help would be appreciated. The
>> biggest hurdle at the moment remains infrastructure. We both lack the
>> amount of
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:04 E. Madison Bray, wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> GitLab work is still going and any help would be appreciated. The
> biggest hurdle at the moment remains infrastructure. We both lack the
> amount of necessary physical infrastructure to keep builds going, as
> well as the
Hi Daniel,
GitLab work is still going and any help would be appreciated. The
biggest hurdle at the moment remains infrastructure. We both lack the
amount of necessary physical infrastructure to keep builds going, as
well as the human infrastructure to regularly monitor the builds and
address
Some time ago there was an attempt to use additionally Gitlab for our
development process. What is the current status of this?
(Back then, I (@dakrenn) asked to be included as user, so that I can
contribute/test as well, as I frequently use Gitlab for many other
projects.)
Best, Daniel
--
You
Le vendredi 12 avril 2019 06:41:50 UTC+2, John H Palmieri a écrit :
>
> Can you provide details of how you created the polyhedron? As David said,
> Q.vertices() should make a copy before returning the result, and I would
> like to recreate this so I can fix it.
>
> +1
--
You received this
20 matches
Mail list logo
