[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Sage grant
On 2014-10-28, Anne Schilling a...@math.ucdavis.edu wrote: Dear All! Dan Bump, Ben Salisbury, Mark Shimozono and I are planning to apply for an NSF grant for Sage (to fund Sage Days and other Sage related activities). We will mostly focus on topics in combinatorics/algebra/ representation theory. It would be great to hear from you what your wishlists are in this area. What are features you would like to implement/ see implemented? Particular areas we would like to emphasis are representation theory of semigroups, representations of affine Lie algebras and hyperbolic Kac-Moody Lie algebras, KLR algebras, the power of the category code and functorial constructions to implement the DAHA and more. But we are open to other suggestions. how about more pedestrian things like representation theory of semisimple algebras (I mostly need these over QQ, or number fields). some of functionality (implemented in Magma, IMHO) is described here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021869312000300 in particular this needs dealing with (non-commutative) maximal orders, somthing that can be found in Magma... Dima Best, Anne -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-combinat-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Sage grant
Hi Anne, I agree with Dima in that it would be great to have some of the basic ring theory available in improved. There are some basic deficiencies with (Laurent) polynomial rings, especially in more than one variable and it would great if all of the problems with quite basic rings could be ironed out. In addition, my life would be much easier if sage were able to efficiently compute in the location of a ring at a ideal -- what I would really like is to be able to calculate in modular systems with parameters, which is my way of saying that I would like to be able to explicit calculations in modular systems for Iwahori-Hecke algebras. Implementing all of these gadgets is, perhaps, not so exciting from the point of view of a grant application, but not having these basic ring constructions available limits what you can currently do with sage. So far I have always found way to get around these problems, but it has been much harder than I expected. Regarding you suggested wish-list, I have already implemented graded Specht modules for KLR algebras for quivers of type A and when I have time I can get the finite dimensional standards as well. My work on this has stalled, but I am hoping to be able to restart soon, so perhaps we should talk more about this aspect of what you are planning. Andrew On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 10:42:53 UTC+11, Anne Schilling wrote: Dear All! Dan Bump, Ben Salisbury, Mark Shimozono and I are planning to apply for an NSF grant for Sage (to fund Sage Days and other Sage related activities). We will mostly focus on topics in combinatorics/algebra/ representation theory. It would be great to hear from you what your wishlists are in this area. What are features you would like to implement/ see implemented? Particular areas we would like to emphasis are representation theory of semigroups, representations of affine Lie algebras and hyperbolic Kac-Moody Lie algebras, KLR algebras, the power of the category code and functorial constructions to implement the DAHA and more. But we are open to other suggestions. Best, Anne -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-combinat-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] SPKG Maintainers??
Hello, all SPKG.txt files list SPKG Maintainers. I never quite understood the reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when creating the SPKG and indeed many maintainers have long left Sage. Since these sections doesn't seem to have a purpose, can we just remove those? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: SPKG Maintainers??
Agree, if you want to know who wrote what then git blame is much more useful than SPKG Maintainers. On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:24:14 AM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: Hello, all SPKG.txt files list SPKG Maintainers. I never quite understood the reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when creating the SPKG and indeed many maintainers have long left Sage. Since these sections doesn't seem to have a purpose, can we just remove those? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] SPKG Maintainers??
+1 On 29/10/2014, at 21:24, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote: Hello, all SPKG.txt files list SPKG Maintainers. I never quite understood the reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when creating the SPKG and indeed many maintainers have long left Sage. Since these sections doesn't seem to have a purpose, can we just remove those? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments. Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more information. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Sage on OSX 10.10
This is still blocking the next beta release.. http://trac.sagemath.org/query?keywords=~yosemiteorder=priority On Friday, October 24, 2014 2:39:45 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: I have a working Sage on OSX 10.10. I suggest to release that shortly, in case anybody else made the mistake of upgrading soon after the initial Yosemite release ;-) Please review http://trac.sagemath.org/query?status=needs_reviewkeywords=~yosemite and any outstanding blocker bugs... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] SPKG Maintainers??
On 2014-10-29 09:32, Francois Bissey wrote: +1 On 29/10/2014, at 21:24, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote: Hello, all SPKG.txt files list SPKG Maintainers. I never quite understood the reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when creating the SPKG and indeed many maintainers have long left Sage. Since these sections doesn't seem to have a purpose, can we just remove those? +1 I was wondering why SKPG's have maintainers and other modules do not. One example would be #16747 (Arb - arbitrary precision floating point ball arithmetic), where the SPKG Maintainers proposed inclusion in July and we have not heard anything from them since that time. Regards, CH -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] SPKG Maintainers??
I agree let's get rid of this. I've updated a bunch of packages but did not feel like filling this field with my name as I couldn't promise I'll keep on maintaining the packages. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Can We Trust Computer Algebra Systems?
I herebey nominate this flame for the Quote of the Year Award. More seriously : rjf is probably right in stating that a mathematical error is more likely to be detected by mathematicians rather than results-oriented people : in most *practical* cases, an approximation will not be practically distinguishable from the exact results, but still lead to possible catastrophe. Furthermore, most results-oriented people will happily sacrifice correctness on the altar of practicality. And when practicality includes social or political feasibility, the sacricice has dire onsequences (yes, economists, I'm looking at you : Forty years of unexpected consequences and still no incentive to revise your postulates... -- Emmanuel Charpentier Le dimanche 26 octobre 2014 16:46:54 UTC+1, rjf a écrit : This article is also discussed in another thread .. Trio . . Depending on what you are doing with the results of any computation, it may be prudent to verify the results. I don't know that CAS are especially more prone to bugs, but it may be that CAS are more likely to come up with results that can be disproved, thereby revealing a bug. Or what is sometimes referred to as a feature. For example, if a weather-prediction program had a bug in it that caused it to predict incorrectly 5% of the time, it might take a while to even notice. flame Fortunately, the result of many computations with CAS are of no consequence whatsoever. /flame On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:23:42 PM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote: Feature article in the Notices: http://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1249.pdf The point, as the authors say, is not about any one system; as we know, any nontrivial software (including good ol' Sage) has plenty of bugs. Happy reading! - kcrisman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Can We Trust Computer Algebra Systems?
On 2014-10-24 18:09, Jakob Kroeker wrote: I suggest Sage to pay QA staff for actively hunting bugs. With which money? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Software is fundamental to research - show your support!
Dear all, I hope you may be interested in the following information: The Software Sustainability Institute ( http://www.software.ac.uk/ ), of which I am a Fellow, had recently initiated the petition to show that software is fundamental to research: research software should be treated as part of the research infrastructure, and if the fundamental role that software plays in research would be overlooked, then an ability to conduct research will be jeopardised. I suggest you to have a look, and if you agree, then please consider signing it too: http://bit.ly/SoftwareIsFundamental Please also help to spread the word about the petition by forwarding this email to anyone who may be interested. If you use Twitter, then you may also retweet this tweet: https://twitter.com/SoftwareSaved/status/522325490754154497 Thank you, Alexander -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Software is fundamental to research - show your support!
By coincidence I recceived your email a few minutes after reading this: https://www.researchprofessional.com/0/rr/news/uk/views-of-the-uk/2014/10/Speak-up-for-software.html which people may also find interesting. John On 29 October 2014 10:31, Alexander Konovalov alexander.konova...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I hope you may be interested in the following information: The Software Sustainability Institute ( http://www.software.ac.uk/ ), of which I am a Fellow, had recently initiated the petition to show that software is fundamental to research: research software should be treated as part of the research infrastructure, and if the fundamental role that software plays in research would be overlooked, then an ability to conduct research will be jeopardised. I suggest you to have a look, and if you agree, then please consider signing it too: http://bit.ly/SoftwareIsFundamental Please also help to spread the word about the petition by forwarding this email to anyone who may be interested. If you use Twitter, then you may also retweet this tweet: https://twitter.com/SoftwareSaved/status/522325490754154497 Thank you, Alexander -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Sage on OSX 10.10
Hi, Under OS X 10.10 Yosemite, with then without homebrew's gcc 4.9.1, I tried and failed to build Sage. 1. With homebrew's gcc 4.9.1 installed. Starting from Sage 6.4.beta6 I merged #17176 u/vbraun/gdb_on_yosemite #17169 u/vbraun/upgrade_to_gcc_4_9_1 #17204 u/vbraun/osx_yosemite_libtool_version_detection The compilation ends with some errors, including the following lines towards the end: -- Trying to download http://www.sagemath.org/packages/upstream/setuptools/setuptools-3.6.tar.gz Traceback (most recent call last): File stdin, line 12, in module File /Users/s/builds/sage/local/lib/python/urllib.py, line 1399, in module from _scproxy import _get_proxy_settings, _get_proxies ImportError: No module named _scproxy -- This seems to indicate that building Python succeeded, but urllib is not working because of a missing _scproxy. Indeed, when I run Sage's python: -- $ ./sage -python Python 2.7.8 (default, Oct 28 2014, 22:07:12) [GCC 4.9.1] on darwin Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information. import urllib Traceback (most recent call last): File stdin, line 1, in module File /Users/s/builds/sage/local/lib/python/urllib.py, line 1399, in module from _scproxy import _get_proxy_settings, _get_proxies ImportError: No module named _scproxy -- 2. I uninstalled homebrew's gcc, ran 'make distclean', then 'make' again. This failed to build gcc, the relevant logs are here: http://carva.org/samuel.lelievre/t/20141029_osx1010_sage64b6_install.log.tgz http://carva.org/samuel.lelievre/t/20141029_osx1010_sage64b6_pkgs_config.log.tgz http://carva.org/samuel.lelievre/t/20141029_osx1010_sage64b6_pkgs_gcc-4.9.1.log.tgz http://carva.org/samuel.lelievre/t/20141029_osx1010_sage64b6_gcc491_config.log.tgz I then uninstalled homebrew's gcc, ran 'make distclean', then 'make' again. This failed to build gcc, the relevant logs are here: http://carva.org/samuel.lelievre/t/20141029_osx1010_sage64b6_install.log.tgz http://carva.org/samuel.lelievre/t/20141029_osx1010_sage64b6_pkgs_config.log.tgz http://carva.org/samuel.lelievre/t/20141029_osx1010_sage64b6_pkgs_gcc-4.9.1.log.tgz http://carva.org/samuel.lelievre/t/20141029_osx1010_sage64b6_gcc491_config.log.tgz -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Sage on OSX 10.10
Sorry, the last 6 lines in my last post are there twice, please ignore the repetition. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: determinant calculation, was: The Misfortunes of a Trio of Mathematicians [...]
On 10/28/14, 15:53, Robert Dodier wrote: On 2014-10-25, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote: http://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1249.pdf P.S. It would be interesting to see if Sage can do the calculation they identified as buggy in mathematica. That would make for a cool follow-up editorial. I've reimplemnted the buggy determinant calculation in Maxima. Presumably from this it would be easy to redo it in any other system; I don't know how Sage manages such calculations. I am happy to report that Maxima, despite its many and varied bugs, doesn't have this particular one: bfloat (determinant (big_matrix)); = 1.951242191319868b9762 Reported value in paper is 1.95124219131987 * 10^9762. Script is attached as a PS. The function foo(n) can be used to generate random examples, as the authors did to find one which tickles the bug. Thanks so much for typing up those long matrices. It looks like Sage also gets the right answer for that particular example: https://cloud.sagemath.com/#projects/49a2531d-9d02-42c9-9db6-f9551fbfa59e/files/2014-10-24-212837.sagews Thanks, Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: The Misfortunes of a Trio of Mathematicians Using Computer Algebra Systems
Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here? I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the fastest: 0.02s on my Mac, vs about 1s for (proven) modular/p-adic. sage 6.3 returns the answer in 0.12s on my computer, while Maxima takes 15s. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Sage on OSX 10.10
Maybe the next beta should not be blocked by this? It's only final releases that have blockers, I guess... unless you mean it's because it doesn't work on your laptop, but I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that sage.math is still the official release machine. See also http://wiki.sagemath.org/SupportedPlatforms which I minimally updated with respect to this just now, but which probably needs some more significant updating as I think we may not have all the Roman-named machines anymore. - kcrisman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Sage on OSX 10.10
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:45:15 PM UTC, kcrisman wrote: See also http://wiki.sagemath.org/SupportedPlatforms which I minimally updated with respect to this just now, but which probably needs some more significant updating as I think we may not have all the Roman-named machines anymore. If you want me to take off OSX from the list of supported platforms then we can do that of course. I don't really mind but I suppose others do ;-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Sage on OSX 10.10
Gcc picks up parts of your homebrew install, you must at least rename /usr/local before you can build anything with homebrew installed there. On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:57:19 AM UTC, Samuel Lelievre wrote: Under OS X 10.10 Yosemite, with then without homebrew's gcc 4.9.1, I tried and failed to build Sage. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: The Misfortunes of a Trio of Mathematicians Using Computer Algebra Systems
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:25:08 PM UTC+1, parisse wrote: Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here? I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the fastest: 0.02s on my Mac, vs about 1s for (proven) modular/p-adic. sage 6.3 returns the answer in 0.12s on my computer, while Maxima takes 15s. Sage uses different algorithms based on difficulty. http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/src/sage/matrix/matrix_integer_dense.pyx#n3252 I'm guessing in this case it's this branch: http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/src/sage/matrix/matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py#n184 -- harald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: The Misfortunes of a Trio of Mathematicians Using Computer Algebra Systems
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Harald Schilly harald.schi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:25:08 PM UTC+1, parisse wrote: Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here? I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the fastest: 0.02s on my Mac, vs about 1s for (proven) modular/p-adic. sage 6.3 returns the answer in 0.12s on my computer, while Maxima takes 15s. Sage uses different algorithms based on difficulty. http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/src/sage/matrix/matrix_integer_dense.pyx#n3252 I'm guessing in this case it's this branch: http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/src/sage/matrix/matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py#n184 I wrote that det code in Sage (though in Sage-6.4 it'll likely be replaced by a call to FLINT...). It computes det(A) in a very interesting way, which is asymptotically massively faster than Mathematica. To compute det(A), choose a random vector v and solve Ax = v using a p-adic lifting algorithm (the one inhttps://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~astorjoh/iml.html). One can prove --using Cramer's rule--that the lcm of the denominators of the entries of x will then be a divisor d of det(A), and with high probability one expects that det(A)/d is a tiny integer. One can then provably (using the Hadamard bound) find det(A) by working modulo a few additional primes and using the Chinese Remainder theorem. -- William -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Please review ipython notebook
Ok, so probably a little late (seem to be closed), and I'm supper not used to track, so I'll comment here. Looking at code in http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/commit/?id=2fc399e25960514a3164080f800d867696480c49 TEMPLATE_PATH could technically be a list of path, as IPython uses Jinja filesystem loader (http://jinja.pocoo.org/docs/dev/api/#jinja2.FileSystemLoader) Thus you should be able to set it to just do : [os.path.join(SAGE_EXTCODE, 'notebook-ipython', 'templates'), path_to_ipython_template], The trick is, to set it to also use path_to_ipython_template_parent_dir : [ sge_template , ipython_parent_template , ipython_template ] which I'll shorten as [A,B,C] Then the file foo.html of (C) you want to overwrite, you create a file with the same name in (A), that extends templates/foo.html, that jinja find through (B). The file you don't overwrite, jinja find in C. Note that the template in templates/foo.html is because (B/templates == C). Does it make sens ? (though you might still need to ship a huge notebook.html) but we can fix that on IPython so that you can just overwrite the links. -- M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Can We Trust Computer Algebra Systems?
With which money? Funding money. If that is not allowed formally, convince funders. In fact, in particular cases active testing was already done by some Sage developers, which (I do not know this) probably were not explicitly paid for that task. There is money for travel, why not for QA? QA is inherently natural for software development. For example, we could find out, how reliable some routines are (otherwise, how to know?), or how effective are the used development process policies: The error rate (crash or incorrect result) for primary decomposition in recent Singular version should be down to about 1 per 200.000 examples (I' stressing these routines at the moment) The error rate for algebraic geometry related computations in polynomial rings over integers (e.g. groebner, intersect, syzygies...) should be much worse. Go figure! Or look at the bug reports in the bugtrackers (Singular,sage). In fact, std() over integers in Singular is broken for years. A serious question: did someone who uses them not notice? And if not, why? I suggest to think about offering bounties for new reported bugs and spend 10 to 30 percent of funding money for QA related tasks - there is a rule of thumb that for three developers one tester is needed. To some noticeable extent QA happens during the ticket review process, but I doubt that reviewers stress the routines with random input and compare the results of different implementations. Jakob Am Mittwoch, 29. Oktober 2014 11:28:01 UTC+1 schrieb Jeroen Demeyer: On 2014-10-24 18:09, Jakob Kroeker wrote: I suggest Sage to pay QA staff for actively hunting bugs. With which money? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Can We Trust Computer Algebra Systems?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Jakob Kroeker kroe...@uni-math.gwdg.de wrote: With which money? Funding money. If that is not allowed formally, convince funders. In fact, in particular cases active testing was already done by some Sage developers, which (I do not know this) probably were not explicitly paid for that task. There is money for travel, why not for QA? QA is inherently natural for software development. For example, we could find out, how reliable some routines are (otherwise, how to know?), or how effective are the used development process policies: The error rate (crash or incorrect result) for primary decomposition in recent Singular version should be down to about 1 per 200.000 examples (I' stressing these routines at the moment) The error rate for algebraic geometry related computations in polynomial rings over integers (e.g. groebner, intersect, syzygies...) should be much worse. Go figure! Or look at the bug reports in the bugtrackers (Singular,sage). In fact, std() over integers in Singular is broken for years. A serious question: did someone who uses them not notice? And if not, why? Many people doing algebraic geometry research use Magma or Macaulay2. Sage/Singular has failed to take over in Algebraic Geometry, like Sage has in other areas, such as combinatorics and big parts of number theory. QC issues with Singular are a part of the reason. In comparison, in number theory we are able to build on high quality libraries like FLINT. I suggest to think about offering bounties for new reported bugs and spend 10 to 30 percent of funding money for QA related tasks - there is a rule of thumb that for three developers one tester is needed. To some noticeable extent QA happens during the ticket review process, but I doubt that reviewers stress the routines with random input and compare the results of different implementations. Sometimes they don't and sometimes they definitely do. I often do, and it is usually results in problems being found. Stress testing and comparison of answers when refereeing patches is good practice, and is made very easy in sage due to how easy it is to call other systems. Jakob Am Mittwoch, 29. Oktober 2014 11:28:01 UTC+1 schrieb Jeroen Demeyer: On 2014-10-24 18:09, Jakob Kroeker wrote: I suggest Sage to pay QA staff for actively hunting bugs. With which money? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: The Misfortunes of a Trio of Mathematicians Using Computer Algebra Systems
The p-adic algorithm is indeed very well known (and implemented in giac). But my point is that Bareiss is faster here (the matrix has huge coefficients but is small), even if you don't care to prove that the determinant is correct once you have (probably) found the last invariant factor and polished the determinant modulo a few primes. I wrote that det code in Sage (though in Sage-6.4 it'll likely be replaced by a call to FLINT...). It computes det(A) in a very interesting way, which is asymptotically massively faster than Mathematica. To compute det(A), choose a random vector v and solve Ax = v using a p-adic lifting algorithm (the one inhttps://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~astorjoh/iml.html). One can prove --using Cramer's rule--that the lcm of the denominators of the entries of x will then be a divisor d of det(A), and with high probability one expects that det(A)/d is a tiny integer. One can then provably (using the Hadamard bound) find det(A) by working modulo a few additional primes and using the Chinese Remainder theorem. -- William -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Poset/lattice, join and join_matrix
By coincidence I just found that the function GCD_list in sage.rings.integer was coded to return one for an empty list. Fix (needs review!) at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17257 Samuel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Photomath
Hey...that would be great to add this to Sage...Personally, I think a lot better combination would be Sage + cymath.com http://www.cymath.com/. Have you used this site? The site does a fantastic job of explaining how to solve problems step by step. On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:00:52 PM UTC-4, Iftikhar Burhanuddin wrote: Hi folks, Photomath is a camera app that can solve math equations. Watching the video on this page http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/23/disrupt-london-finalist-photomath-rockets-to-the-top-of-the-app-store made me wonder about the kind of problems/equations (Sage+Photo)math might be able to solve. Your thoughts are welcome. Regards, Ifti -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Sage on OSX 10.10
On 2014-10-29, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote: --=_Part_5637_1547295187.1414591060718 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:45:15 PM UTC, kcrisman wrote: See also http://wiki.sagemath.org/SupportedPlatforms which I minimally updated with respect to this just now, but which probably needs some more significant updating as I think we may not have all the Roman-named machines anymore. If you want me to take off OSX from the list of supported platforms then we can do that of course. I don't really mind but I suppose others do ;-) Probably OSX 10.10 can wait for the next (sub)release... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Sage on OSX 10.10
I can't even test tickets on OSX without the gcc update, because our only buildbot is running on 10.10. IMHO the only thing that CAN wait is beautification of the scripts or repacking the gcc tarball to save some disk space... On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:26:28 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote: On 2014-10-29, Volker Braun vbrau...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: --=_Part_5637_1547295187.1414591060718 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:45:15 PM UTC, kcrisman wrote: See also http://wiki.sagemath.org/SupportedPlatforms which I minimally updated with respect to this just now, but which probably needs some more significant updating as I think we may not have all the Roman-named machines anymore. If you want me to take off OSX from the list of supported platforms then we can do that of course. I don't really mind but I suppose others do ;-) Probably OSX 10.10 can wait for the next (sub)release... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Sage grant
Hi Anne, I agree with Dima in that it would be great to have some of the basic ring theory available in improved. There are some basic deficiencies with (Laurent) polynomial rings, especially in more than one variable and it would great if all of the problems with quite basic rings could be ironed out. In addition, my life would be much easier if sage were able to efficiently compute in the location of a ring at a ideal -- what I would really like is to be able to calculate in modular systems with parameters, which is my way of saying that I would like to be able to explicit calculations in modular systems for Iwahori-Hecke algebras. Implementing all of these gadgets is, perhaps, not so exciting from the point of view of a grant application, but not having these basic ring constructions available limits what you can currently do with sage. So far I have always found way to get around these problems, but it has been much harder than I expected. Regarding you suggested wish-list, I have already implemented graded Specht modules for KLR algebras for quivers of type A and when I have time I can get the finite dimensional standards as well. My work on this has stalled, but I am hoping to be able to restart soon, so perhaps we should talk more about this aspect of what you are planning. Andrew On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 10:42:53 UTC+11, Anne Schilling wrote: Dear All! Dan Bump, Ben Salisbury, Mark Shimozono and I are planning to apply for an NSF grant for Sage (to fund Sage Days and other Sage related activities). We will mostly focus on topics in combinatorics/algebra/ representation theory. It would be great to hear from you what your wishlists are in this area. What are features you would like to implement/ see implemented? Particular areas we would like to emphasis are representation theory of semigroups, representations of affine Lie algebras and hyperbolic Kac-Moody Lie algebras, KLR algebras, the power of the category code and functorial constructions to implement the DAHA and more. But we are open to other suggestions. Best, Anne -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
