Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

-1 If something has been done that should be undone, I very much trust Volker to take care of it when he can, without the need for endless time-consuming discussions and votes. Best, Guillermo On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 17:54, David Roe wrote: > Hi all, > Sage has had a review process for over

Re: [sage-devel] (Re-)building an inclusive SageMath community. II: Recognizing and fighting abuse, bullying, disrespect

I totally concur with Doris. Time permitting, I shall add some other thoughts of mine. Best, Guillermo On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 at 10:58, 'Doris Behrendt' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > allow me drop some thoughts and step into the silence: > > I am not a

Re: [sage-devel] Vote: changes to Sage's Code of Conduct

+1 And big thanks to everybody. Guillermo On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 17:51, John H Palmieri wrote: > Dear Sage community, > > As announced at > https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/Xf6dbPLmKPY/m/p88auKlBAwAJ, I > propose some changes to the Code of Conduct. Those changes have been > discussed

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 Guillermo On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:43, David Roe wrote: > The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in > PR #37428 , in this thread > and then in this > thread

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 Guillermo On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:23, David Roe wrote: > With no further discussion on this thread > , I'm calling a > vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR. > > *Proposal* > It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Question about make dependencies

Thanks for sharing this witty article, Karl-Dieter. Disclaimer: My knowledge of English is very limited. Guillermo On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 16:36, kcrisman wrote: > To John C's point, and perhaps with the humor that John P intended: > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Question about make dependencies

Just to say that while I try to build SagMath on macOS, for everyday use I rely on Marc's app, which works perfectly. And it is most useful for all macOS users I know, as installation is straightforward and it works "out of the box". In fact, I wish the same was true for Windows PCs… Guillermo

Re: [sage-devel] Make ipympl a standard package

+1 Guillermo On Sun, 17 Sept 2023 at 17:14, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > Hi Sage dev, > > In PR #36129 , which is > devoted to the upgrade to Jupyter Notebook 7, we are proposing to make > ipympl a standard package. > ipympl

Re: [sage-devel] Voting: Block-scoped optional tag and the keyword

My choice is (A). Guillermo On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 04:40, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > We spent six days for the preliminary discussion in the sage-devel thread > > https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/OUnoroIf0qc > > about choosing the keyword triggering block-scoped optional tag needed

Re: [sage-devel] ping - please cast you vote: VOTE: Follow NEP 29: Recommended Python version

For the benefit of all of us (including Dima, Matthias and Tobias), would it be possible to start afresh, without any reference whatsoever to these 3 linked discussions? Also, would it be possible for David to act somehow as a "moderator"? Best, Guillermo On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 at 17:37, Tobias

Re: [sage-devel] Re: ping - please cast you vote: VOTE: Follow NEP 29: Recommended Python version

the occasion to thank everybody involved in SageMath, which is a wonderful project. Repeating an evidence, all of you are important. Best, Guillermo On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 21:59, G. M.-S. wrote: > > Dima and Matthias, > > I completely agree with Nils. > > Could you (both of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: ping - please cast you vote: VOTE: Follow NEP 29: Recommended Python version

Hi, you managed to make me laugh… Thanks. Anyway, we need you. Both of you. Best, Guillermo On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 02:17, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > Hi Guillermo, > > On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 12:59:54 PM UTC-7 G. M.-S. wrote: > > Could you (both of you) take a short vacatio

Re: [sage-devel] Re: ping - please cast you vote: VOTE: Follow NEP 29: Recommended Python version

Dima and Matthias, I completely agree with Nils. Could you (both of you) take a short vacation from SageMath, please? More globally, I propose to stop this discussion completely for a few days. Thanks in advance. Guillermo On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 21:14, Nils Bruin wrote: > @dima, @matthias

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Follow NEP 29: Recommended Python version

My vote is empty, for the following reasons: —I think the question asked is not clear enough, as per reactions. —My "dream" is having an easy to install recent version of SageMath for everybody wishing to do mathematics with it. Currently this is only the case for macOS and perhaps some flavours

Re: [sage-devel] RealField isn't doing it right

Dear SageMath developers, Just to say a big *Thank You!* to you all for being utterly patient and polite and positive, even when we do not deserve it (I speak for myself). Best, Guillermo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To

Re: [sage-devel] Breakage on OS X

I have had this problem since 9.8.beta6. See https://groups.google.com/g/sage-release/c/CQrSaeuJ0RA/m/B7N5-5MpAwAJ Guillermo On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 at 20:51, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > I tried building and testing the latest develop with Homebrew on Intel, > and I was getting segfaults in

Re: [sage-devel] Possibly incorrect result in groebner basis over the integers

This result is correct, as you are working over ℤ. If you try over ℚ, you will get [1]. Guillermo On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 11:57, Georgi Guninski wrote: > I think grobner basis which contain non-zero constant and polynomials > is a bug. > > sage: K.=ZZ[] > sage:

Re: [sage-devel] (x^6+y^9)%(x^3-y^2-1) == x^12*y - 4*x^9*y + ...

Hi Georgi. In the case of a principal ideal, to get a Gröbner basis the only thing you may need is making the generator monic, so there is almost nothing to do. Then you do an ordered division of the other polynomial by this one, which is straightforward. HTH, Guillermo On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at

Re: [sage-devel] (x^6+y^9)%(x^3-y^2-1) == x^12*y - 4*x^9*y + ...

Could you elaborate, Dima? It seems to me that *quo_rem* ignores the ordering and always uses *invlex*. Would this be a bug or a feature? Guillermo On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 17:45, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 2:07 PM G. M.-S. wrote: > > > > > > John is ri

Re: [sage-devel] (x^6+y^9)%(x^3-y^2-1) == x^12*y - 4*x^9*y + ...

John is right. Dividing a by b means finding q and r such that a = q*b + r and r is either 0 or "smaller" than b. The question is the meaning of "smaller". For univariate polynomials, one says that r is smaller than b if deg(r) < deg(b) (one can include r = 0 by defining deg(0) = –∞). For

Re: [sage-devel] Migration to GitHub complete

Huge thanks to everybody involved. Guillermo On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 08:03, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > https://github.com/sagemath/sage > > See > https://github.com/sagemath/trac-to-github/blob/master/docs/Migration-Trac-to-Github.md > for a transition guide from Trac to GitHub. > -- You

Re: [sage-devel] Migration end date changed to Monday Feb 6 at 08:00 UTC

Thanks for keeping us posted and above all for all the hard work all of you are doing. As they say in French: *Bon courage !* Guillermo On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 03:38, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > We've hit a technical problem in the import (for which we already have > identified a solution), so I

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Colours

FWIW, here is what I receive "as is". You will notice that it is not a problem about HTML formatting. Guillermo *** BEGIN *** Sender: sage-devel@googlegroups.com Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 16:31:38 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Bruin To: sage-devel Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [sage-devel] Re:

Re: [sage-devel] online talk about the github workflow

As I have said to Vincent, I can take care of making the video. I shall submit it to Matthias before making it available for publication. Guillermo On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 15:53, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > Recording my talk is, of course, fine with me. > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:38:33 AM

Re: [sage-devel] Colours

Sorry, John. In my case, I get everything in black without any quoting, so I cannot distinguish the responses. (I am not colorblind, I use Gmail and I have the standard configuration.) Guillermo On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 11:53, John Cremona wrote: > A few people who post to this list have their

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: move Sage development to Github

+1 for GitHub (if I am allowed to vote). Guillermo On Wed, 21 Sept 2022 at 19:23, David Roe wrote: > Dear Sage developers, > Following extensive discussion, both recently > > (prompted > by issues upgrading the trac server)

Re: [sage-devel] Cannot launch command-line session in macOS on M1: libncurses issue

I have just installed this version of SageMath under exactly the same conditions and I have no problem at all. Perhaps you have a wrong version of libncurses installed, because mine is version 5 (more precisely 5.4) and not 6. Guillermo On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 19:45, Murray Eisenberg wrote: >

Re: [sage-devel] Trac #34152 needs you (to vote)!

copy files > hybrid > sage pseudo package Thanks, François. Guillermo On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 01:38, François Bissey wrote: > Hi all, > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34152 needs help to decide what solution > we implement going forward. > > The ticket is concerned with updating the

Re: [sage-devel] parametric plot

inf >> 94 -1.0 nan >> 95 -1.0 nan >> 96 -1.0 nan >> 97 -1.0 nan >> 98 -0. nan >> 99 -1.0 nan >> >> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:51:58

Re: [sage-devel] parametric plot

Sorry, my message was incomplete. So yes, there is a problem. On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 at 16:14, G. M.-S. wrote: > > Hi Gema. > > Doing > > sage: xt,yt=C[*0*],C[*1*] > > sage: xt.taylor(t,oo,*3*) > > -6*t^4*e^(-3*t)*log(t)^2 - 3*t*e^(-2*t)*log(t)^2 - 1 > > sage: y

Re: [sage-devel] parametric plot

Hi Gema. Doing sage: xt,yt=C[*0*],C[*1*] sage: xt.taylor(t,oo,*3*) -6*t^4*e^(-3*t)*log(t)^2 - 3*t*e^(-2*t)*log(t)^2 - 1 sage: yt.taylor(t,oo,*3*) 1/2*t*e^(-2*t)*log(t)^2 + 1/2*(2*t^4*log(t)^2 + t*log(t)^3)*e^(-3*t) + 1/2 sage: you see that it converges towards (-1, 1/2) exponentially

Re: [sage-devel] closed tickets

Thanks Dima. I asked because if the beta branch has problems you need to merge some tickets in order to make some progress with other tickets. Last example: #34025. Guillermo On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 at 18:02, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:00 PM G. M.-S. wr

[sage-devel] closed tickets

Is there an easy way to get a branch with all closed tickets merged? Does it make sense to work with such a branch instead of the last beta branch? I.e., for tickets positively reviewed or needing review. Guillermo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [sage-devel] Re: SageMath 9.7.beta3: hecke_series takes forever

ent Delecrois, this is due to #33876. David Ayotte is >> taking care of it. >> >> Guillermo >> >> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 at 22:46, G. M.-S. wrote: >> >>> >>> After waiting for more than an hour of CPU time (1 core at 100%), here >>> ar

[sage-devel] Re: SageMath 9.7.beta3: hecke_series takes forever

As suggested by Vincent Delecrois, this is due to #33876. David Ayotte is taking care of it. Guillermo On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 at 22:46, G. M.-S. wrote: > > After waiting for more than an hour of CPU time (1 core at 100%), here are > the results of interrupting. > > *macOS 1

[sage-devel] Re: SageMath 9.7.beta3: hecke_series takes forever

rgent/hecke_series.py in random_solution(B, K) *282* ai = ZZ.random_element((K // i) + 1) *283* a.append(ai) --> 284 K = K - ai*i *285* a.append(K) *286* a.reverse() src/cysignals/signals.pyx in cysignals.signals.python_check_interrupt() KeyboardInterrupt:

[sage-devel] SageMath 9.7.beta3: hecke_series takes forever

I am not sure if I should open a ticket or add to a ticket. This is on SageMath 9.7.beta3 built from source on Apple Silicon (both macOS 11.6.7 and macOS 12.4). This test, taken from src/sage/modular/overconvergent/hecke_series.py takes forever: sage: hecke_series(*5*, *7*, *1*, *5*,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Closing the old Sage wiki

Good work, Matthias! Guillermo On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 00:18, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:19:54 PM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> In particular, there are many pages collecting information on the >> software landscape that could be consolidated and moved to

[sage-devel] make ptestlong: more than 8 cores?

It seems to me that make ptestlong does not use more than 8 cores, even if MAKE="make -j20" and there are 10 cores available. This is not the case for make, where all 10 cores are at 100% most of the time. Am I missing something? Guillermo -- You received this message because you are

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

I must confess I have never dealt with Magma… So let us talk about the ease of installation of the other 3. Guillermo On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 12:24, John Cremona wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 11:18, G. M.-S. wrote: > > > > On macOS: A wonderful app, thanks

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On macOS: A wonderful app, thanks to Marc Culler. On Windows: Too complex for my far from savvy students. We are stuck with SageMath 9.3 for the time being. On Linux: It depends on the distribution, some have totally outdated versions (as seen now and then in messages to sage-support). Most

[sage-devel] sagemath_doc_html being made twice

Hoping this is not a stupid question, I have noticed that make includes make --no-print-directory sagemath_doc_html-SAGE_DOCS-no-deps So I wonder why make ptestlong does exactly the same again. Looking at sagemath_doc_html-none.log I see no difference between the two. The reason for my asking

Re: [sage-devel] ERROR In function "is_prime"

Perhaps this is a hint? The first message was sent on Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 17:30:21 -0700 (PDT) Guillermo On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 at 12:57, John Cremona wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2022, 10:50 Andrew, wrote: > >> There does seem to be a problem: >> >> sage: k = 61*2^88+1 ; k >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: overloading * for Set intersection

Sorry, I did not find anything about this in the docs for Sets (but I should have tried the operators for Python sets). Guillermo On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 20:25, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > -1 on this; as Sébastien says, we already have overloaded the bitwise > operators &, | for this -- which is

[sage-devel] overloading * for Set intersection

I have noticed the overloading of + for Set union, which I find very convenient. Correspondingly, I would like to propose the overloading of * for Set intersection. It seems to me that it suffices to modify local/lib/python3.9/site-packages/sage/sets/set.py by adding in class