Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:49, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 8:35:24 AM UTC+9 Marc Culler wrote: > > I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal > before there has been a discussion. > > > Sorry if it was not clear to you, but the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

I see. Thanks. - Marc On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 6:49 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 8:35:24 AM UTC+9 Marc Culler wrote: > > I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal > before there has been a discussion. > > > Sorry if it was not

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 8:35:24 AM UTC+9 Marc Culler wrote: I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal before there has been a discussion. Sorry if it was not clear to you, but the discussion before this vote is here:

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal before there has been a discussion. Without a chair, it would be impossible for this group to follow Robert's Rules of Order, even approximately. But the basic process should still be the same. The rules are designed

[sage-devel] Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

Dear colleagues, I am working on some changes to Sage's Code of Conduct, and I am asking for comments. Once the draft has stabilized, then we will hold a vote on sage-devel to approve (or not) the changes. Please visit https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501 to see the proposal. The

[sage-devel] Re: Build test on a PR is giving an error while code is wroking on my machine

Oh ! right, there should be only one 'sage:', thanks for your help ! On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 12:01:45 AM UTC+5:30 Ricardo Buring wrote: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 7:23:45 PM UTC+1 Ruchit Jagodara wrote: > > I recently made a PR regarding the implementation of the >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 4:46 PM William Stein wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:39 AM Eric Gourgoulhon > wrote: > >> -1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker. >> For instance: >> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914 >> This issue, which regards the use of the

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

Le mercredi 28 février 2024 à 17:39:25 UTC+1, Eric Gourgoulhon a écrit : -1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker. For instance: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914 This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been detected by the CI framework. It

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 5:42 PM 'Animesh Shree' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > reason scipy factors only square sparse matrices > > Problem is basically in _superlu.gstrf >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 5:00 PM Nils Bruin wrote: > On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 08:03:45 UTC-8 Giacomo Pope wrote: > > > I don't know the history of this choice or what we should be doing > generally. -1 for polynomials with only positive degree seems like a > computer science workaround,

[sage-devel] Re: Build test on a PR is giving an error while code is wroking on my machine

On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 7:23:45 PM UTC+1 Ruchit Jagodara wrote: I recently made a PR regarding the implementation of the minimum_generating_set function in polynomial time,#37481 . However, in this PR, one of my build tests is failing and

[sage-devel] Build test on a PR is giving an error while code is wroking on my machine

Hey there! I recently made a PR regarding the implementation of the minimum_generating_set function in polynomial time,#37481 . However, in this PR, one of my build tests is failing and giving a error. I'm bit confused about how to solve this

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

reason scipy factors only square sparse matrices Problem is basically in _superlu.gstrf it accepts only one dimension as input rather than both row and col. In c

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 08:03:45 UTC-8 Giacomo Pope wrote: I don't know the history of this choice or what we should be doing generally. -1 for polynomials with only positive degree seems like a computer science workaround, but for the LaurentPolynomialRing it just seems wrong? I

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:39 AM Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > -1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker. > For instance: > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914 > This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been > detected by the CI framework. It is a

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

I am currently working for RDF and CDF mainly. I was planning to overload LU function of *sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx* by defining new LU in *sage/matrix/matrix_double_sparce.pyx* . I couldn't understand what is multiprecision version but I guess you are asking for RR or other inexact field.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

-1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker. For instance: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914 This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been detected by the CI framework. It is a serious regression and definitely a blocker IMHO: are we willing to

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

As Dima points out, SPLU decomposition is probably more useful in practice, so it's great to expose it. It should probably be exposed through a different method than PLU decomposition, though. For the return format: permutations are much more compact and efficient to describe permutations than

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

Yes Because of same reason I tried to commented scipy code to test this. I got some error saying *RuntimeError: Factor is exactly singular* But same worked for

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

Not a "maths" why, but I know anything which uses singular currently returns -1 because of the following snippet cdef long singular_polynomial_deg(poly *p, poly *x, ring *r) noexcept: cdef long _deg, deg cdef int dummy deg = -1 _deg = -1 if p == NULL: return -1

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:29 AM Giacomo Pope wrote: > Apologies for the basic question in this thread, but recently I have seen > lots of conversation about the different labels and I want to clarify > something for myself. > > In the past few PR I have made for Sage, randomised testing has

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 6:45 AM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > Here I withdraw the early premature "giving up" on my recent proposal, > since afterwards there were some positive comments. Hence I open a voting > for > > Proposal: > > 1. Do not use "blocker" label for Issues, as "blocker" means to

Re: [sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:51 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> We propose the following voting system. >> 1. A nomination period of 1 week, where any Sage developer can nominate >> someone to serve on the committee by emailing sage-ab...@googlegroups.com. >> You are allowed to nominate yourself

Re: [sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 3:20 AM David Roe wrote: > Hi Sage developers, > As some of you may be aware, there has been more conflict in the last > several months than normal, including multiple violations of our Code of > Conduct. Sage's mechanism for moderating conflicts and addressing such >

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

There is a good reason for numerics people to adopt "SuperLU" factorisations over the classical PLU sparse decomposition - namely, it's more stable. Perhaps it should be made the Sage's default for sparse RDF matrices, too. By the way, https://portal.nersc.gov/project/sparse/superlu/superlu_ug.pdf

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

in the polynomial case, the usual convention is deg(0)=-infinity I don't know why Sage uses -1 instead: R.=QQ[] f=0*x*y f.degree() gives -1. On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:50 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Sorry, I confused it with valuation, but I guess it is

[sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

Yes, I'd say so. On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 14:57:26 UTC+1 Giacomo Pope wrote: > Ahh ok, thank you. Considering the following output I think a PR to make > the degree of zero for these Laurent classes -Infinity is reasonable? > > ``` > sage: R. = LaurentSeriesRing(QQ) > sage:

[sage-devel] Re: linear equations over finite fields

Quick fix needs review. Possibly checking for performance regressions would be good. On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 14:35:36 UTC+1 Martin R wrote: > As it turns out after some digging, this is > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/28586 and set to "critical" since > at least October

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

If there is code causing CI failure in random testing, should I mark the fix for this as a "blocker", even if the chance of this failure is small? No. A "blocker" blocks the release. We use it for serious fixes worth the delay. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

[sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

Ahh ok, thank you. Considering the following output I think a PR to make the degree of zero for these Laurent classes -Infinity is reasonable? ``` sage: R. = LaurentSeriesRing(QQ) sage: R.zero().valuation() +Infinity sage: R.zero().degree() -1 sage: sage: R. = LaurentPolynomialRing(QQ) sage:

[sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

Sorry, I confused it with valuation, but I guess it is still a related question. On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 14:36:35 UTC+1 Giacomo Pope wrote: > This is not what I see on the current beta: > > sage: R. = LaurentSeriesRing(QQ) > sage: R.zero().degree() > -1 > sage: R. =

[sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

This is not what I see on the current beta: sage: R. = LaurentSeriesRing(QQ) sage: R.zero().degree() -1 sage: R. = LazyLaurentSeriesRing(QQ) sage: R.zero().degree() --- AttributeErrorTraceback

[sage-devel] Re: linear equations over finite fields

As it turns out after some digging, this is https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/28586 and set to "critical" since at least October 2019. On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 13:03:44 UTC+1 Martin R wrote: > Dear all, > > I just discovered the following - was this a problem in earlier sage >

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

I went through the link. It also returns perm_c and perm_r and the solution is represented as Pr * (R^-1) * A * Pc = L * U It is similar to one returned by scipy >>> lu.perm_r array([0, 2, 1, 3], dtype=int32) >>> lu.perm_c array([2, 0, 1, 3], dtype=int32) I think it doesn't

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

One more option would be umfack via scikits.umfpack: https://scikit-umfpack.github.io/scikit-umfpack/reference/scikits.umfpack.UmfpackLU.html Regards, Max On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 7:07:53 AM UTC-5 Animesh Shree wrote: > One thing I would like to suggest. > > We can provide multiple

[sage-devel] Re: Poll: deprecate backslash operator

Here is another bug apparently related to the preparser and "\": https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37467 Regards, Max On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:01:54 AM UTC-4 John H Palmieri wrote: > By the way, see https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36194 for a bug > related to the

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

One thing I would like to suggest. We can provide multiple ways to compute the sparse LU 1. scipy 2. sage original implementation in src.sage.matrix.matrix2.LU (Note - link

[sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

LazyLaurentSeriesRing(QQ) currently gives +Infinity. On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 12:50:45 UTC+1 Giacomo Pope wrote: > While chasing various bugs which appeared in the CI, I ended up adding a > small method for computing random elements for the LaurentPolynomialRing > class. > > When

[sage-devel] linear equations over finite fields

Dear all, I just discovered the following - was this a problem in earlier sage versions, too? See https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37496 Best wishes, Martin sage: m = matrix(GF(3), [[2]]) sage: b = vector(GF(3), [1]) sage: m.solve_right(b) (2) sage: m = matrix(GF(3), [[2]],

[sage-devel] Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

While chasing various bugs which appeared in the CI, I ended up adding a small method for computing random elements for the LaurentPolynomialRing class. When writing randomised testing I got myself confused about the degree of the zero polynomial. For the univariate and multivariate polynomial

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

Apologies for the basic question in this thread, but recently I have seen lots of conversation about the different labels and I want to clarify something for myself. In the past few PR I have made for Sage, randomised testing has uncovered (usually) trivial bugs. I then write new PRs to fix

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

Thank you for reminding I went through. We need to Decompose A11 only and rest can be calculated via taking inverse of L11 or U11. Here A11 is square matrix and we can use scipy to decompose square matrices. Am I correct? New and only problem that I see is the returned LU decomposition of