Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ARM] Sage 6.4

[Julien Puydt]

Hi,

Le 17/11/2014 12:17, Volker Braun a écrit :

Our gcc 4.9.2 doesn't compile on arm, and nobody
reviewed http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17348 so far.


Somebody did before I found the time to read about it...

Snark on #sagemath

--
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] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[Ondřej Čertík]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Bill Page  wrote:
> On 19 November 2014 21:23, kcrisman  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Since this mostly concerns FriCAS I am cross posting to that group.  I will 
>>> also post the patch there.  For FriCAS list reference the original email 
>>> thread is here:
>>>
>>
>> But if you come up with a solution Sage (or Ginac, or whatever) can 
>> implement too, please let us know!
>>
>
> Right now Ondrej's proposed definition is looking pretty good to me
> but I think it needs more extensive testing.  Apparently Ginac with
> Vladimir V. Kisil's patch is able to compute at least some of the
> results I showed with FriCAS.  If someone has used Ginac and is able
> to compile it with the patch, it would be good to have these results
> for comparison.
>
> Yes, certainly.  We can also continue this thread.

What you posted looks good. But we need to test it for arg(z), re(z),
im(z) and any other non-analytic function that we can find.

Ondrej

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[Nathann Cohen]

Hello !

>> Am I misreading this or does this belong on sage-sexist-comments ?
>
> I wondered the same, but I would definitely given Nathann the benefit
> of the doubt, because:

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I can use some of that !

The truth is that I have no idea how to say gender-neutral sentences
in english without making my sentences non-deterministic, i.e. "a
bunch of 20 [guys|girls] .* each expressing [his|her] own voice". And
I hate non-determinism.

> - I think Nathann is not a native speaker of English (instead, I think
> his native tongue is French?)

I am more illiterate than ill-willing.

Nathann

-- 
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 installation guide and git

[kcrisman]

> This morning I wanted to install sage on another machine so I went to the 
> sage 
> installation guide  
> to remind myself where to clone the git repository from. As far as I can 
> see, there's no mention of git anywhere in this guide. In particular, there 
> is a install from source code 
>  section that I 
> thought ought to mention using git, but it doesn't.
>
> Next I went to sage's download-source 
>  web page. It also doesn't 
> mention git. (In addition, under the heading of "Source", there is also an 
> annoying circular link, Download complete source code 
> , that reloads the page for 
> you. This ought to be removed.)
>
> Finally, I found the information that I wanted in the Git the Hard way 
>  
> section of the developer guide.
>
> I think that we ought to:
>
>- mention how to use git in the installation guide
>- mention how to use git on the down-source web page (and the circular 
>link should be removed).
>
> In both cases, it is probably enough to add links to the developers guide.
>

This seems very reasonable.  I think that the point in the installation 
guide is that one doesn't actually need git to compile Sage; presumably 
quite a few people only compile it and never do anything with it that 
requires git.  But of course cross-links are very good; we need more of 
them TO the installation guide, in fact, as it is a very comprehensive but 
under-appreciated resource.

> Are there any reasons not to do this? Assuming not I can hack the 
> installation guide but, presumably, whoever maintains the download will 
> have to take care of that.
>
> Andrew
>
>

-- 
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] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[Bill Page]

On 19 November 2014 21:23, kcrisman  wrote:
>
>
>> Since this mostly concerns FriCAS I am cross posting to that group.  I will 
>> also post the patch there.  For FriCAS list reference the original email 
>> thread is here:
>>
>
> But if you come up with a solution Sage (or Ginac, or whatever) can implement 
> too, please let us know!
>

Right now Ondrej's proposed definition is looking pretty good to me
but I think it needs more extensive testing.  Apparently Ginac with
Vladimir V. Kisil's patch is able to compute at least some of the
results I showed with FriCAS.  If someone has used Ginac and is able
to compile it with the patch, it would be good to have these results
for comparison.

Yes, certainly.  We can also continue this thread.

Bill.

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[kcrisman]

> In my mind, "moving a conversation to sage-flame" is a constructive, 
> if imperfect way to handle conversations that are going off the deep 
> end.  It's a way that we can flag a conversation as being 
> inappropriate for the tone of sage-devel without pointing fingers.  If 
> somebody doesn't want to continue, they can just stop participating at 
> that point.  Badgering such a person, either through repeated posts to 
> sage-flame or through personal email, would be inappropriate. 
>
>
Yeah, I don't think anyone is suggesting, "If you want to insult someone, 
go to sage-flame", but rather, "If two people are insulting each other, do 
it on sage-flame".  I avoid sage-flame precisely because I have zero 
interest in what goes on there, but others flock like a moth to ... 
 Anyway, perhaps this is at least part of a solution, and Viviane's point 
is very good as well.  Tricky part is making sure any possible insulter 
doesn't become insultee, or doesn't feel that to be the case.  And here 
having "community standards" and such is reasonable.  

Here is another idea that might be better and is related to Tom's comments; 
maybe a suggestion (again, not a voted rule) that if Y makes a comment 
about X a couple times, if a few people try to point out that some people 
might find it offensive, and if X responds without flaming in a way that 
makes it clear "agree to disagree", OR just doesn't respond, then Y is best 
served by giving up, even if Y thinks Y is in the right.  If X starts 
flaming, or responding ad nauseam, on the other hand, then the suggestion 
for sage-flame is in order.

That is a long way of saying that it would be nice to have no mean no when 
it comes to perception of personal attacks.  I agree that this community, 
made of people who really like intricate and comprehensive lines of 
reasoning (professional hazard), probably will find that unsatisfying.

-- 
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] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[kcrisman]

> Since this mostly concerns FriCAS I am cross posting to that group.  I 
> will also post the patch there.  For FriCAS list reference the original 
> email thread is here:
>
>
But if you come up with a solution Sage (or Ginac, or whatever) can 
implement too, please let us know!

-- 
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] Sage installation guide and git

[Andrew]

This morning I wanted to install sage on another machine so I went to the sage 
installation guide  to 
remind myself where to clone the git repository from. As far as I can see, 
there's no mention of git anywhere in this guide. In particular, there is a 
install 
from source code  
section that I thought ought to mention using git, but it doesn't.

Next I went to sage's download-source 
 web page. It also doesn't 
mention git. (In addition, under the heading of "Source", there is also an 
annoying circular link, Download complete source code 
, that reloads the page for 
you. This ought to be removed.)

Finally, I found the information that I wanted in the Git the Hard way 
 
section of the developer guide.

I think that we ought to:

   - mention how to use git in the installation guide
   - mention how to use git on the down-source web page (and the circular 
   link should be removed).
   
In both cases, it is probably enough to add links to the developers guide.

Are there any reasons not to do this? Assuming not I can hack the 
installation guide but, presumably, whoever maintains the download will 
have to take care of that.

Andrew

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[Tom Boothby]

In my mind, "moving a conversation to sage-flame" is a constructive,
if imperfect way to handle conversations that are going off the deep
end.  It's a way that we can flag a conversation as being
inappropriate for the tone of sage-devel without pointing fingers.  If
somebody doesn't want to continue, they can just stop participating at
that point.  Badgering such a person, either through repeated posts to
sage-flame or through personal email, would be inappropriate.

For example: I'm happy to lob personal attacks at Richard Fateman on
sage-flame and have him respond in kind.  This is an established
tradition that we both enjoy, and as far as I can tell, neither of us
has ever had our feelings hurt there.  The origin of sage-flame was a
recognition that certain thick-skinned developers enjoy this peculiar
conversation style, and the fact that other developers are entertained
by the conversations.

Those of us who do participate in the flames recognize one another.
Looking back in time, I see that I (privately) requested that Richard
not be so brutal with another developer whose thread had been moved to
sage-flame, and he obliged (and as far as I know, that developer
didn't get their feelings hurt).  Generally, one should expect
responses in kind on sage-flame, so for the most part, it doesn't get
nasty except between people who are having a good time of it.

So, the above is good for 'no-fault' offenses where all parties are
simply being bullheaded about something and mutually pissing each
other off.  But I do see a distinct need for finger-pointing in some
cases.  If William goes Torvalds on some brand new developer, I don't
care where the communication occurs, that's simply inappropriate and
must be addressed.  If he found a bug in FLINT and gave Bill Hart the
same treatment, I'd go make popcorn.

In situations where it looks like real abuse has occurred, a committee
of arbiters should exist to rule on it.  Otherwise, we're left with
mob rule and the onlooker effect (where nobody speaks up to stop
abuse, assuming somebody else will take care of it).



On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Viviane Pons  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have been following this for a while even if I didn't post. I am actually
> in favor of a code of conduct even so I understand its limitations.
>
> Anyway, what I think we really need is "something to do" when you feel
> insulted or offended in a thread. Something to take into account is that
> this usually takes place in tiresome, time consuming conversations and the
> "offended" person has usually very limited energy left. A bad scenario is if
> this person just stops talking for a while and a worst one is when this
> person just stops getting involved in sage-devel (or sage) altogether. This
> is what we want to avoid.
>
> Is moving to sage-flame enough? It seems ok but the fact that we're not
> actually "moving" the conversation might be a problem. Also the vote process
> that William proposed seemed quite heavy to me because it might lead to more
> debates and, as I said, the offended persons could already be on the edge of
> stopping the talking altogether.
> Some other questions: is posting on sage-flame a good enough reason to be
> allowed to insult people? (I don't feel it should be) What do we do if it's
> not a thread that's going out of line but comments on sage-tracks?
>
> I feel a code of conduct could just be a good shared base of "good attitude"
> to follow... Something to help you say to someone "this is a personal
> attack, you're being out of line" with a feeling that you're supported by
> the community doing so. I don't mind if we don't call it "code", "common
> sense recommendations" would be enough for me.
>
> Cheers
>
> Viviane
>
> 2014-11-19 22:43 GMT+01:00 Viviane Pons :
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-11-19 20:56 GMT+01:00 Mike Zabrocki :
>>>
>>> A bunch of 10~20 guys who can talk together for days about having or

 not a "code of conduct", each expressing his own voice and mixing it
 with the others'... really have no communication problem :-P

>>> Am I misreading this or does this belong on sage-sexist-comments ?
>>>
>>
>> I honestly don't think it was...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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

Re: [sage-devel] Building Sage 6.4 in openSUSE 13.2 fails

[François Bissey]

This test if your c++ complier is recent enough and complete enough. You may 
have to install some extra development packages for your compiler.
I would actually be curious to see your "config.log".

Francois

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:07:18 Nicolás Sirolli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> After obtaining the source code from the git repository, I tried to build
> Sage but it failed. This is the error I see:
> 
> checking complex.h usability... no
> checking complex.h presence... yes
> configure: WARNING: complex.h: present but cannot be compiled
> configure: WARNING: complex.h: check for missing prerequisite headers?
> configure: WARNING: complex.h: see the Autoconf documentation
> configure: WARNING: complex.h: section "Present But Cannot Be Compiled"
> configure: WARNING: complex.h: proceeding with the compiler's result
> configure: WARNING: ## -- ##
> configure: WARNING: ## Report this to sage-devel@googlegroups.com ##
> configure: WARNING: ## -- ##
> checking for complex.h... no
> configure: error: Exiting, since you do not have the 'complex.h' header
> file.
> If you would like to try to build Sage anyway (to help porting),
> export the variable 'SAGE_PORT' to something non-empty.
> Makefile:527: recipe for target
> '/home/nico/Appz/sage/local/var/lib/sage/installed/prereq' failed
> make[2]: *** [/home/nico/Appz/sage/local/var/lib/sage/installed/prereq]
> Error 1
> 
> In sage/logs/pkgs there are two files: patch-2.7.1.log, which claims that
> patch has been succesfully installed, and config.log.
> 
> Please, let me know if there is more information that I can supply to help
> you understand this error.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nico.

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[Viviane Pons]

Hi everyone,

I have been following this for a while even if I didn't post. I am actually
in favor of a code of conduct even so I understand its limitations.

Anyway, what I think we really need is "something to do" when you feel
insulted or offended in a thread. Something to take into account is that
this usually takes place in tiresome, time consuming conversations and the
"offended" person has usually very limited energy left. A bad scenario is
if this person just stops talking for a while and a worst one is when this
person just stops getting involved in sage-devel (or sage) altogether. This
is what we want to avoid.

Is moving to sage-flame enough? It seems ok but the fact that we're not
actually "moving" the conversation might be a problem. Also the vote
process that William proposed seemed quite heavy to me because it might
lead to more debates and, as I said, the offended persons could already be
on the edge of stopping the talking altogether.
Some other questions: is posting on sage-flame a good enough reason to be
allowed to insult people? (I don't feel it should be) What do we do if it's
not a thread that's going out of line but comments on sage-tracks?

I feel a code of conduct could just be a good shared base of "good
attitude" to follow... Something to help you say to someone "this is a
personal attack, you're being out of line" with a feeling that you're
supported by the community doing so. I don't mind if we don't call it
"code", "common sense recommendations" would be enough for me.

Cheers

Viviane

2014-11-19 22:43 GMT+01:00 Viviane Pons :

>
>
> 2014-11-19 20:56 GMT+01:00 Mike Zabrocki :
>
>> A bunch of 10~20 guys who can talk together for days about having or
>>
>>> not a "code of conduct", each expressing his own voice and mixing it
>>> with the others'... really have no communication problem :-P
>>>
>>> Am I misreading this or does this belong on sage-sexist-comments ?
>>
>>
> I honestly don't think it was...
>
>
>
>> -Mike
>>
>> --
>> 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] Building Sage 6.4 in openSUSE 13.2 fails

[Nicolás Sirolli]

Hi,

After obtaining the source code from the git repository, I tried to build 
Sage but it failed. This is the error I see:

checking complex.h usability... no
checking complex.h presence... yes
configure: WARNING: complex.h: present but cannot be compiled
configure: WARNING: complex.h: check for missing prerequisite headers?
configure: WARNING: complex.h: see the Autoconf documentation
configure: WARNING: complex.h: section "Present But Cannot Be Compiled"
configure: WARNING: complex.h: proceeding with the compiler's result
configure: WARNING: ## -- ##
configure: WARNING: ## Report this to sage-devel@googlegroups.com ##
configure: WARNING: ## -- ##
checking for complex.h... no
configure: error: Exiting, since you do not have the 'complex.h' header 
file.
If you would like to try to build Sage anyway (to help porting),
export the variable 'SAGE_PORT' to something non-empty.
Makefile:527: recipe for target 
'/home/nico/Appz/sage/local/var/lib/sage/installed/prereq' failed
make[2]: *** [/home/nico/Appz/sage/local/var/lib/sage/installed/prereq] 
Error 1

In sage/logs/pkgs there are two files: patch-2.7.1.log, which claims that 
patch has been succesfully installed, and config.log.

Please, let me know if there is more information that I can supply to help 
you understand this error.

Thanks,
Nico.

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[Mike Zabrocki]

>> with the others'... really have no communication problem :-P 
In that case, may I request a moment of silence to be held in honor of the 
irony of this comment?

-Mike

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[Viviane Pons]

2014-11-19 20:56 GMT+01:00 Mike Zabrocki :

> A bunch of 10~20 guys who can talk together for days about having or
>
>> not a "code of conduct", each expressing his own voice and mixing it
>> with the others'... really have no communication problem :-P
>>
>> Am I misreading this or does this belong on sage-sexist-comments ?
>
>
I honestly don't think it was...



> -Mike
>
> --
> 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.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Code of Conduct

[William Stein]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Mike Zabrocki  wrote:
> A bunch of 10~20 guys who can talk together for days about having or
>>
>> not a "code of conduct", each expressing his own voice and mixing it
>> with the others'... really have no communication problem :-P
>>
> Am I misreading this or does this belong on sage-sexist-comments ?

I wondered the same, but I would definitely given Nathann the benefit
of the doubt, because:

- There were several women who commented on this thread

- In colloquial English, "guys" doesn't necessarily imply males only
(the expression "You Guys" is often used to refer to several people of
either gender),

- I think Nathann is not a native speaker of English (instead, I think
his native tongue is French?)

 -- William

>
> -Mike
>
> --
> 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: Code of Conduct

[Mike Zabrocki]

A bunch of 10~20 guys who can talk together for days about having or 

> not a "code of conduct", each expressing his own voice and mixing it 
> with the others'... really have no communication problem :-P 
>
> Am I misreading this or does this belong on sage-sexist-comments ?

-Mike 

-- 
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] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[Bill Page]

Since this mostly concerns FriCAS I am cross posting to that group.  I will
also post the patch there.  For FriCAS list reference the original email
thread is here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/6j-LcC6tpkE

Here is the result of compiling the patch against the current SourceForge
svn trunk:

wspage@opensuse:~> fricas
The directory for FriCAS, /usr/local/lib/fricas/target/x86_64-suse-linux,
does not exist.
Goodbye.
wspage@opensuse:~> fricas
Checking for foreign routines
AXIOM="/usr/local/lib64/fricas/target/x86_64-suse-linux"
spad-lib="/usr/local/lib64/fricas/target/x86_64-suse-linux/lib/libspad.so"
foreign routines found
openServer result 0
   FriCAS Computer Algebra System
 Version: FriCAS 2014-11-14
   Timestamp: Wed Nov 19 11:57:49 EST 2014
-
   Issue )copyright to view copyright notices.
   Issue )summary for a summary of useful system commands.
   Issue )quit to leave FriCAS and return to shell.
-


(1) -> D(abs(x),x)

 _
 x + x
   (1)  ---
2abs(x)
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(2) -> D(conjugate(x),x)

   (2)  1
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(3) -> f:=operator 'f

   (3)  f
  Type:
BasicOperator
(4) -> D(abs(f(x)),x)

 , _  _  ,
f(x)f (x) + f(x)f (x)

   (4)  -
  2abs(f(x))
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(5) -> D(abs(log(x)),x)

__
xlog(x) + x log(x)
   (5)  --
_
  2xxabs(log(x))
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(6) -> D(log(abs(x)),x)

  _
  x + x
   (6)  
   2
2abs(x)
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(7) -> D(abs(%i*x),x)

   _
   x + x
   (7)  --
2abs(%i x)
   Type:
Expression(Complex(Integer))
(8) -> D(1/abs(x),x)

   _
 - x - x
   (8)  
   3
2abs(x)
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(9) -> D(1/abs(x)^2,x)

  _
- x - x
   (9)  ---
  4
abs(x)
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(10) -> D(x/abs(x)^3,x)

 _  2 2
 - 3xx + 2abs(x)  - 3x
   (10)  --
   5
2abs(x)
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(11) -> D(abs(x)^2,x)

 _
   (11)  x + x
Type:
Expression(Integer)

Bill.


On 19 November 2014 11:51, Ondřej Čertík  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ondřej Čertík 
wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Bill Page 
wrote:
> >> OK, this looks better!
> >>
> >> (1) -> D(abs(x),x)
> >>
> >>  _
> >>  x + x
> >>(1)  ---
> >> 2abs(x)
> >> Type:
> >> Expression(Integer)
> >> (2) -> D(conjugate(x),y)
> >>
> >>(2)  0
> >> Type:
> >> Expression(Integer)
> >> (3) -> D(conjugate(x),x)
> >>
> >>(3)  1
> >> Type:
> >> Expression(Integer)
> >> (4) -> f:=operator 'f
> >>
> >>(4)  f
> >>   Type:
> >> BasicOperator
> >> (5) -> D(abs(f(x)),x)
> >>
> >>  , _  _  ,
> >> f(x)f (x) + f(x)f (x)
> >>
> >>(5)  -
> >>   2abs(f(x))
> >> Type:
> >> Expression(Integer)
> >> (6) -> D(abs(log(x)),x)
> >>
> >> __
> >> xlog(x) + x log(x)
> >>(6)  --
> >> _
> >>   2xxabs(log(x))
> >> Type:
> >> Expression(Integer)
> >
> > That looks good, right? What about arg(z). What are the Wirtinger
> > derivatives of arg(z)? Do you have other examples of non-analytic
> > functions?
> >
> > Would you mind posting your patch to FriCAS somewhere? I would be
> > interested in how you implemented it.
>
> I'll try to compile FriCAS myself and apply your patch, so that I can
> play with it. Can you also try:
>
> abs(I*x)
>
> 1/abs(x)
> 1/abs(x)^2
> x/abs(x)^3
> abs(x)^2
>
> The x/abs(x)^3 is a Coulomb's law in 1D.
>
> Ondrej
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Code of Conduct

[Nathann Cohen]

Just a random thought after coming back from a very nice evening out:

A bunch of 10~20 guys who can talk together for days about having or
not a "code of conduct", each expressing his own voice and mixing it
with the others'... really have no communication problem :-P

Good night to all ! One review and I go to sleep.

Nathann

-- 
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] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[Ondřej Čertík]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ondřej Čertík  wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Bill Page  wrote:
>> OK, this looks better!
>>
>> (1) -> D(abs(x),x)
>>
>>  _
>>  x + x
>>(1)  ---
>> 2abs(x)
>> Type:
>> Expression(Integer)
>> (2) -> D(conjugate(x),y)
>>
>>(2)  0
>> Type:
>> Expression(Integer)
>> (3) -> D(conjugate(x),x)
>>
>>(3)  1
>> Type:
>> Expression(Integer)
>> (4) -> f:=operator 'f
>>
>>(4)  f
>>   Type:
>> BasicOperator
>> (5) -> D(abs(f(x)),x)
>>
>>  , _  _  ,
>> f(x)f (x) + f(x)f (x)
>>
>>(5)  -
>>   2abs(f(x))
>> Type:
>> Expression(Integer)
>> (6) -> D(abs(log(x)),x)
>>
>> __
>> xlog(x) + x log(x)
>>(6)  --
>> _
>>   2xxabs(log(x))
>> Type:
>> Expression(Integer)
>
> That looks good, right? What about arg(z). What are the Wirtinger
> derivatives of arg(z)? Do you have other examples of non-analytic
> functions?
>
> Would you mind posting your patch to FriCAS somewhere? I would be
> interested in how you implemented it.

I'll try to compile FriCAS myself and apply your patch, so that I can
play with it. Can you also try:

abs(I*x)

1/abs(x)
1/abs(x)^2
x/abs(x)^3
abs(x)^2

The x/abs(x)^3 is a Coulomb's law in 1D.

Ondrej

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[John Cremona]

I had always assumed that sage-flame was a fictional entity!  Please
don't post a link here, I do not want to be tempted to read it

John

On 19 November 2014 16:30, mmarco  wrote:
> I really like the idea of moving threads to sage-flame when they start to go
> out of hand. What was the criterion to do so until now?
>
> Also, from an ownership point of view, the right to move discussions between
> google groups belongs to google, and google's rules state that they would do
> so when the person that opened the group decides (correct me if i am wrong).
> That would mean that it is William's decission (again, correct me if i am
> wrong).
>
> I have no complain with the criterion followed until now to move flames to
> sage-flame.
>
>
>
> El martes, 18 de noviembre de 2014 20:06:35 UTC+1, William escribió:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Vincent Delecroix
>> <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2014-11-18 11:36 UTC-07:00, William Stein :
>> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Anne Schilling
>> >> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On 11/18/14 7:55 AM, Harald Schilly wrote:
>> 
>>  On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:26:18 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
>> 
>>  What if instead of a "code of conduct" there was a "community
>>  expectations" SHORT document that just say what we expect?
>> 
>> 
>>  I'm a little bit late to this thread, but I've read all the mails.
>>  This
>>  "expectations" document sounds interesting to me, whereas I'm a bit
>>  hesitant to this "code of conduct" thing. In my eyes, it is
>>  stating a lot of obvious things, and doesn't solve immediate
>>  problems. I
>>  agree that it could be abused in some way, just because it exists and
>>  hence it is a leverage point. e.g. phrases like "poor
>>  behavior" are a bit hollow for me. (*)
>> >>>
>> >>> Saying that discussions that get out of hand can be relegated to
>> >>> sage-flame is, I think, important.
>> >>> For example, I did not know that we could do that until very recently.
>> >>> Stating explicitly how this can
>> >>> be done might be good.
>> >>>
>>  We should not forget, that most of us here (as mathematicians &
>>  researchers in general) are trained to be (a) very picky and (b)
>>  long-term persistent. Those ingredients do not help if a discussion
>>  derails into lengthy substitution-arguments to just make a point in a
>>  time-consuming thread. What would actually help in such situations is
>>  to
>>  step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe there
>>  should be an intervention team of "senior" community people to sort
>>  this
>>  out: e.g. just posting "DRAMA MODE" as a signal for everyone to stop
>>  it?
>>  But who are those and how do they gain authority?
>> >>>
>> >>> One problem with this is that the intervention team might not be
>> >>> reading
>> >>> all threads.
>> >>> So having a way to say where there is a problem might still be useful.
>> >>> I agree deciding who the intervention team is is an important
>> >>> question.
>> >>> Probably William
>> >>> would be a good choice.
>> >>
>> >> Here is I think a concrete, apolitical proposal.
>> >>
>> >> Given the potentially political nature of such a choice, one
>> >> possibility is to do something apolitical, and select based on
>> >> ownership. In particular, based on lines of code contributed to Sage,
>> >> which is an (imperfect!) but non-politicial measure of how much
>> >> ownership people have in Sage (with legal value, since people do not
>> >> contribute their copyright).By this definition:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors?from=2006-02-05&to=2014-11-18&type=a
>> >>
>> >> the top 12  all time list of contributors to Sage, in order, are:
>> >>
>> >>   - William Stein
>> >>  [SNIP]
>> >>
>> >> We could:
>> >>
>> >>   1. Create a private mailing list called sage-abuse with these people
>> >> as members.
>> >>
>> >>   2. Make a clear statement on the sagemath.org website, etc., that if
>> >> people think a thread should be on sage-flame, send a message to the
>> >> sage-abuse list.
>> >>
>> >>   3. The sage-abuse list members will have a quick discussion and if
>> >> what to do isn't clear, they will vote (which means a quick on-list
>> >> vote that must be completed within one day).If a majority votes to
>> >> move the discussion should move to sage-flame, they ensure it moves.
>> >>
>> >> For now, the sage-abuse group would have exactly one duty, which is to
>> >> ensure that discussions get moved to sage-flame when requested.
>> >> That's it.   We would give this a try for 6 months, and only then
>> >> revisit whether the group should expand its duties or be dissolved.
>> >
>> > Having a committee in charge of the repression looks more than
>> > suspicious to me. Why would you exclude people from those important
>> > decision ? Why do not make the discussion public ?
>> >  Isn't sage-devel
>> > good enough f

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[Ondřej Čertík]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Bill Page  wrote:
> OK, this looks better!
>
> (1) -> D(abs(x),x)
>
>  _
>  x + x
>(1)  ---
> 2abs(x)
> Type:
> Expression(Integer)
> (2) -> D(conjugate(x),y)
>
>(2)  0
> Type:
> Expression(Integer)
> (3) -> D(conjugate(x),x)
>
>(3)  1
> Type:
> Expression(Integer)
> (4) -> f:=operator 'f
>
>(4)  f
>   Type:
> BasicOperator
> (5) -> D(abs(f(x)),x)
>
>  , _  _  ,
> f(x)f (x) + f(x)f (x)
>
>(5)  -
>   2abs(f(x))
> Type:
> Expression(Integer)
> (6) -> D(abs(log(x)),x)
>
> __
> xlog(x) + x log(x)
>(6)  --
> _
>   2xxabs(log(x))
> Type:
> Expression(Integer)

That looks good, right? What about arg(z). What are the Wirtinger
derivatives of arg(z)? Do you have other examples of non-analytic
functions?

Would you mind posting your patch to FriCAS somewhere? I would be
interested in how you implemented it.

Ondrej

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[William Stein]

On Nov 19, 2014 8:30 AM, "mmarco"  wrote:
>
> I really like the idea of moving threads to sage-flame when they start to
go out of hand. What was the criterion to do so until now?
>
> Also, from an ownership point of view, the right to move discussions
between google groups belongs to google, and google's rules state that they
would do so when the person that opened the group decides (correct me if i
am wrong). That would mean that it is William's decission (again, correct
me if i am wrong).
>
> I have no complain with the criterion followed until now to move flames
to sage-flame.
>

There was a recent discussion that I strongly felt should be on sage-flame
at the time (as I felt attacked).  I posted regularly in the thread "I
think this thread should be moved to sage-flame" but people ignored my
pleas or disagreed with me (perhaps rightly so, in retrospect).
Based on that experience, I do think moving threads to sage-flame should
involve a (quick) but formalized process.

By moving them I do not me anything technical.  I just mean opening a new
thread there with the same subject.

William
>
>
> El martes, 18 de noviembre de 2014 20:06:35 UTC+1, William escribió:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Vincent Delecroix
>> <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2014-11-18 11:36 UTC-07:00, William Stein :
>> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Anne Schilling <
an...@math.ucdavis.edu>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On 11/18/14 7:55 AM, Harald Schilly wrote:
>> 
>>  On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:26:18 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
>> 
>>  What if instead of a "code of conduct" there was a "community
>>  expectations" SHORT document that just say what we expect?
>> 
>> 
>>  I'm a little bit late to this thread, but I've read all the mails.
This
>>  "expectations" document sounds interesting to me, whereas I'm a bit
>>  hesitant to this "code of conduct" thing. In my eyes, it is
>>  stating a lot of obvious things, and doesn't solve immediate
problems. I
>>  agree that it could be abused in some way, just because it exists
and
>>  hence it is a leverage point. e.g. phrases like "poor
>>  behavior" are a bit hollow for me. (*)
>> >>>
>> >>> Saying that discussions that get out of hand can be relegated to
>> >>> sage-flame is, I think, important.
>> >>> For example, I did not know that we could do that until very
recently.
>> >>> Stating explicitly how this can
>> >>> be done might be good.
>> >>>
>>  We should not forget, that most of us here (as mathematicians &
>>  researchers in general) are trained to be (a) very picky and (b)
>>  long-term persistent. Those ingredients do not help if a discussion
>>  derails into lengthy substitution-arguments to just make a point in
a
>>  time-consuming thread. What would actually help in such situations
is to
>>  step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe there
>>  should be an intervention team of "senior" community people to sort
this
>>  out: e.g. just posting "DRAMA MODE" as a signal for everyone to
stop it?
>>  But who are those and how do they gain authority?
>> >>>
>> >>> One problem with this is that the intervention team might not be
reading
>> >>> all threads.
>> >>> So having a way to say where there is a problem might still be
useful.
>> >>> I agree deciding who the intervention team is is an important
question.
>> >>> Probably William
>> >>> would be a good choice.
>> >>
>> >> Here is I think a concrete, apolitical proposal.
>> >>
>> >> Given the potentially political nature of such a choice, one
>> >> possibility is to do something apolitical, and select based on
>> >> ownership. In particular, based on lines of code contributed to Sage,
>> >> which is an (imperfect!) but non-politicial measure of how much
>> >> ownership people have in Sage (with legal value, since people do not
>> >> contribute their copyright).By this definition:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors?from=2006-02-05&to=2014-11-18&type=a
>> >>
>> >> the top 12  all time list of contributors to Sage, in order, are:
>> >>
>> >>   - William Stein
>> >>  [SNIP]
>> >>
>> >> We could:
>> >>
>> >>   1. Create a private mailing list called sage-abuse with these
people
>> >> as members.
>> >>
>> >>   2. Make a clear statement on the sagemath.org website, etc., that
if
>> >> people think a thread should be on sage-flame, send a message to the
>> >> sage-abuse list.
>> >>
>> >>   3. The sage-abuse list members will have a quick discussion and if
>> >> what to do isn't clear, they will vote (which means a quick on-list
>> >> vote that must be completed within one day).If a majority votes
to
>> >> move the discussion should move to sage-flame, they ensure it moves.
>> >>
>> >> For now, the sage-abuse group would have exactly one duty, which is
to
>> >> ensure that discussions get moved to sage-flame when requested.
>> >> That's it.   We would give this a try for 6 months, and only

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[Ondřej Čertík]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Bill Page  wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-19 9:36 AM, "Bill Page"  wrote:
>> ...
>> Then I noticed that if we have f=z we get
>>
>>   conjugate(z).diff(z)
>>
>> which is 0.  So the 2nd term is 0 and the result is just the first
>> Wirtinger derivative.
>>
>> Perhaps I am misinterpreting something?
>>
>
> Oops, my fault.  According to your definition
>
>   conjugate(z).diff(z) = 1

Right, because this "diff" is the total derivative in the direction
theta, so the first Wirtinger derivative is 0, the second one is 1 and
you get:

0 + 1*e^{-2*i*theta})

and if you implicitly set theta=0, then you get 1.

Ondrej

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[Harald Schilly]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM, mmarco  wrote:
> Also, from an ownership point of view, the right to move discussions between
> google groups belongs to google, and google's rules state that they would do
> so when the person that opened the group decides (correct me if i am wrong).
> That would mean that it is William's decission (again, correct me if i am
> wrong).

Well, no, not really. This is now a question of how to do this in
practice. There are several administrators, including me, and it is
not really possible to "move" a discussion. You can only post a
continuation link in the thread, e.g., by first forwarding the
offending message to sage-flame and then linking to it from the
originating thread. This did happen before and worked.

Another option admins have is to lock a thread, but I don't know what
happens to emails still sent to the thread and I don't think we should
do this.

Rather than locking a thread, admins could also remove and ban
someone. This is the analog to what were those in the Gentoo forum
(mentioned earlier) were discussing. I don't see a need for this
either, because spammers are easy to spot and blocking someone only
increases the problem.

-- 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] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[Bill Page]

OK, this looks better!

(1) -> D(abs(x),x)

 _
 x + x
   (1)  ---
2abs(x)
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(2) -> D(conjugate(x),y)

   (2)  0
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(3) -> D(conjugate(x),x)

   (3)  1
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(4) -> f:=operator 'f

   (4)  f
  Type:
BasicOperator
(5) -> D(abs(f(x)),x)

 , _  _  ,
f(x)f (x) + f(x)f (x)

   (5)  -
  2abs(f(x))
Type:
Expression(Integer)
(6) -> D(abs(log(x)),x)

__
xlog(x) + x log(x)
   (6)  --
_
  2xxabs(log(x))
Type:
Expression(Integer)


On 19 November 2014 10:19, Bill Page  wrote:

>
> On 2014-11-19 9:36 AM, "Bill Page"  wrote:
> > ...
> > Then I noticed that if we have f=z we get
> >
> >   conjugate(z).diff(z)
> >
> > which is 0.  So the 2nd term is 0 and the result is just the first
> Wirtinger derivative.
> >
> > Perhaps I am misinterpreting something?
> >
>
> Oops, my fault.  According to your definition
>
>   conjugate(z).diff(z) = 1
>
> Bill.
>

-- 
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: Code of Conduct

[mmarco]

I really like the idea of moving threads to sage-flame when they start to 
go out of hand. What was the criterion to do so until now?

Also, from an ownership point of view, the right to move discussions 
between google groups belongs to google, and google's rules state that they 
would do so when the person that opened the group decides (correct me if i 
am wrong). That would mean that it is William's decission (again, correct 
me if i am wrong). 

I have no complain with the criterion followed until now to move flames to 
sage-flame.



El martes, 18 de noviembre de 2014 20:06:35 UTC+1, William escribió:
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Vincent Delecroix 
> <20100.d...@gmail.com > wrote: 
> > 2014-11-18 11:36 UTC-07:00, William Stein  >: 
> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Anne Schilling <
> an...@math.ucdavis.edu > 
> >> wrote: 
> >>> On 11/18/14 7:55 AM, Harald Schilly wrote: 
>  
>  On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:26:18 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: 
>  
>  What if instead of a "code of conduct" there was a "community 
>  expectations" SHORT document that just say what we expect? 
>  
>  
>  I'm a little bit late to this thread, but I've read all the mails. 
> This 
>  "expectations" document sounds interesting to me, whereas I'm a bit 
>  hesitant to this "code of conduct" thing. In my eyes, it is 
>  stating a lot of obvious things, and doesn't solve immediate 
> problems. I 
>  agree that it could be abused in some way, just because it exists and 
>  hence it is a leverage point. e.g. phrases like "poor 
>  behavior" are a bit hollow for me. (*) 
> >>> 
> >>> Saying that discussions that get out of hand can be relegated to 
> >>> sage-flame is, I think, important. 
> >>> For example, I did not know that we could do that until very recently. 
> >>> Stating explicitly how this can 
> >>> be done might be good. 
> >>> 
>  We should not forget, that most of us here (as mathematicians & 
>  researchers in general) are trained to be (a) very picky and (b) 
>  long-term persistent. Those ingredients do not help if a discussion 
>  derails into lengthy substitution-arguments to just make a point in a 
>  time-consuming thread. What would actually help in such situations is 
> to 
>  step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe there 
>  should be an intervention team of "senior" community people to sort 
> this 
>  out: e.g. just posting "DRAMA MODE" as a signal for everyone to stop 
> it? 
>  But who are those and how do they gain authority? 
> >>> 
> >>> One problem with this is that the intervention team might not be 
> reading 
> >>> all threads. 
> >>> So having a way to say where there is a problem might still be useful. 
> >>> I agree deciding who the intervention team is is an important 
> question. 
> >>> Probably William 
> >>> would be a good choice. 
> >> 
> >> Here is I think a concrete, apolitical proposal. 
> >> 
> >> Given the potentially political nature of such a choice, one 
> >> possibility is to do something apolitical, and select based on 
> >> ownership. In particular, based on lines of code contributed to Sage, 
> >> which is an (imperfect!) but non-politicial measure of how much 
> >> ownership people have in Sage (with legal value, since people do not 
> >> contribute their copyright).By this definition: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors?from=2006-02-05&to=2014-11-18&type=a
>  
> >> 
> >> the top 12  all time list of contributors to Sage, in order, are: 
> >> 
> >>   - William Stein 
> >>  [SNIP] 
> >> 
> >> We could: 
> >> 
> >>   1. Create a private mailing list called sage-abuse with these people 
> >> as members. 
> >> 
> >>   2. Make a clear statement on the sagemath.org website, etc., that if 
> >> people think a thread should be on sage-flame, send a message to the 
> >> sage-abuse list. 
> >> 
> >>   3. The sage-abuse list members will have a quick discussion and if 
> >> what to do isn't clear, they will vote (which means a quick on-list 
> >> vote that must be completed within one day).If a majority votes to 
> >> move the discussion should move to sage-flame, they ensure it moves. 
> >> 
> >> For now, the sage-abuse group would have exactly one duty, which is to 
> >> ensure that discussions get moved to sage-flame when requested. 
> >> That's it.   We would give this a try for 6 months, and only then 
> >> revisit whether the group should expand its duties or be dissolved. 
> > 
> > Having a committee in charge of the repression looks more than 
> > suspicious to me. Why would you exclude people from those important 
> > decision ? Why do not make the discussion public ? 
> >  Isn't sage-devel 
> > good enough for that ? 
>
> Maybe sage-devel would be good enough.   We could use our existing 
> process, which is that you start a new thread with a title like 
>
> VOTE: to move thread  to sage-flame 
>
> [ ] Yes 
> [ ] No 

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[Bill Page]

On 2014-11-19 9:36 AM, "Bill Page"  wrote:
> ...
> Then I noticed that if we have f=z we get
>
>   conjugate(z).diff(z)
>
> which is 0.  So the 2nd term is 0 and the result is just the first
Wirtinger derivative.
>
> Perhaps I am misinterpreting something?
>

Oops, my fault.  According to your definition

  conjugate(z).diff(z) = 1

Bill.

-- 
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] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)

[Bill Page]

On 18 November 2014 21:22, Ondřej Čertík  wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Bill Page 
wrote:
>> On 18 November 2014 17:40, Ondřej Čertík  wrote:
>>>
>>> In my notation, the Wirtinger derivative is d f(z) / d z and d f(z) /
>>> d conjugate(z). The Df(z) / Dz is the complex derivative taking in
>>> direction theta (where it could be theta=0). Given the chain rule, as
>>> I derived above using chain rules for the Wirtinger derivative:
>>>
>>> D f(g) / D z = df/dg Dg/Dz + df/d conjugate(g) D conjugate(g) / Dz
>>>
>>>
>>> abs(f).diff(z) = (conjugate(f)*f.diff(z) + f*conjugate(f).diff(z)) /
(2*abs(f))
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Let me know if you found any issue with this.
>>>

I implemented this in FriCAS and tried a few examples, e.g.

(4) -> D(abs(f(z,conjugate(z))),z)

_ __ _
f(z,z)f  (z,z) + f(z,z)f  (z,z)
   ,2   ,1
   (4)  ---
   _
  2abs(f(z,z))
Type:
Expression(Integer)


where the ,1 and ,2 notation represents the derivative with respect the the
first and second variable of f, respectively.

Then I noticed that if we have f=z we get

  conjugate(z).diff(z)

which is 0.  So the 2nd term is 0 and the result is just the first
Wirtinger derivative.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting something?

Bill.

-- 
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] where are the bots ?

[Frédéric Chapoton]

Hello,

the patchbot seems to be broken again. The round icons says something like 
"unavailable for maintenance"

Frederic

Le mercredi 22 octobre 2014 09:05:38 UTC+2, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
>
> The patchbot didn't survive the migration to the new machine. Fixed. 
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM, R. Andrew Ohana  > wrote: 
> > The buildbot was having some issues and was reporting everything as a 
> > failure. I disabled it until I get a moment to fix it. 
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Frédéric Chapoton  > 
> > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Hello, 
> >> 
> >> it seems that the bots have disappeared. Both the buildbot (was top 
> left) 
> >> and the patchbot (top right). 
> >> 
> >> The patchbot links are broken (used to be colored little round things). 
> >> 
> >> And http://patchbot.sagemath.org points to William's homepage. 
> >> 
> >> Can we we hope that the bots will be back soon ? 
> >> 
> >> Frédéric 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> 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+...@googlegroups.com . 
> >> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com 
> . 
> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. 
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Andrew 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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+...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to sage-...@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.