Re: [sage-devel] Re: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 17/09/15 17:10, William Stein wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:04 PM, kcrisman wrote: > it would be useful to revive the discussion of a > true SageMath Foundation, separate from SMCI of course, whether > incorporated > in the US or Europe (or elsewhere), but it sounds like there wasn't > currently enough interest in helping with the substantial paperwork > involved > in this as of yet. But if this existed it might help support some of > the > other Sage infrastructure needs, beyond the *.math.washington.edu > resources > this thread was supposed to be about :) Such a foundation isn't going to happen any time soon, at least not with me the one doing it. I talked extensively with a partner at Fenwick & West, and was advised that it is currently basically impossible for an "Open Source Software Not for profit" to get 501c3 status these days in the US. The IRS used to look favorably on such >>> >>> Wow, that is really depressing. It would be interesting to poll various >>> US-based OSS organizations that have such foundations (if any exist) to >>> see >>> how long ago they got such status. Certainly being on a mailing list for >>> UW >>> is preferable to no option for donating at all! >> >> >> You should be able to get removed from that list -- and I will try to >> make it so they remove everybody that was added due to donating to >> Sage Foundation. > > > Sorry for the naive question: why such fondation needs to be based in US? I'm not a lawyer, but I think the main point is for donors to be able to get tax benefits for donating. For US donors, this means that the foundation needs to be registered with the IRS as a nonprofit of some kind (501c3 or otherwise). For European donors, the requirements vary somewhat by country. There's a tradeoff between the paperwork, time and money needed to register with each country and the amount you expect to receive from residents of that country. Since the US has a larger population than any single European country, that's why the discussion usually focuses on it as a US foundation. Of course, having a French, English or German organization would be great too, but requires work. David > > Vincent > > > -- > 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: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
On 17/09/15 17:10, William Stein wrote: On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:04 PM, kcrisman wrote: it would be useful to revive the discussion of a true SageMath Foundation, separate from SMCI of course, whether incorporated in the US or Europe (or elsewhere), but it sounds like there wasn't currently enough interest in helping with the substantial paperwork involved in this as of yet. But if this existed it might help support some of the other Sage infrastructure needs, beyond the *.math.washington.edu resources this thread was supposed to be about :) Such a foundation isn't going to happen any time soon, at least not with me the one doing it. I talked extensively with a partner at Fenwick & West, and was advised that it is currently basically impossible for an "Open Source Software Not for profit" to get 501c3 status these days in the US. The IRS used to look favorably on such Wow, that is really depressing. It would be interesting to poll various US-based OSS organizations that have such foundations (if any exist) to see how long ago they got such status. Certainly being on a mailing list for UW is preferable to no option for donating at all! You should be able to get removed from that list -- and I will try to make it so they remove everybody that was added due to donating to Sage Foundation. Sorry for the naive question: why such fondation needs to be based in US? Vincent -- 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] Problems with latest Xcode on OS X
Before starting a build myself I checked your logs. It looks like for ecm the problem was not new but only gave a warning before: /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=compile gcc -march=corei7 -mtune=corei7-avx -g -O3 -fPIC -c -o mulredc1.lo mulredc1.s libtool: compile: gcc -march=corei7 -mtune=corei7-avx -g -O3 -fPIC -c mulredc1.s -o mulredc1.o /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=compile gcc -march=corei7 -mtune=corei7-avx -g -O3 -fPIC -c -o mulredc2.lo mulredc2.s libtool: compile: gcc -march=corei7 -mtune=corei7-avx -g -O3 -fPIC -c mulredc2.s -o mulredc2.o mulredc2.s:40:Alignment too large: 15. assumed. mulredc2.s:150:Alignment too large: 15. assumed. /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=compile gcc -march=corei7 -mtune=corei7-avx -g -O3 -fPIC -c -o mulredc3.lo mulredc3.s libtool: compile: gcc -march=corei7 -mtune=corei7-avx -g -O3 -fPIC -c mulredc3.s -o mulredc3.o mulredc3.s:40:Alignment too large: 15. assumed. mulredc3.s:26:Alignment too large: 15. assumed. A lot of those mulredc*.s file give a similar warning. So the behaviour has changed from assuming a reasonable value to just force you to fix the code. Haven’t looked at the other yet. François > On 18/09/2015, at 09:19, John H Palmieri wrote: > > I just updated my command-line tools and Xcode to version 7.0 (released > today, I think). When I tried to build the latest beta of Sage from scratch, > the following packages did not build: > > - ecm: log file http://www.math.washington.edu/~palmieri/Sage/ecm-6.4.4.log > - gsl: log file http://www.math.washington.edu/~palmieri/Sage/gsl-1.16.log > - numpy: log file > http://www.math.washington.edu/~palmieri/Sage/numpy-1.8.1.p0.log > > See http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19232. (Also #19233, #19234, #19235.) It > is of course possible that Apple will release updates to Xcode that will fix > some of these problems, but I don't know how to predict that. > > -- > John > > > -- > 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] Problems with latest Xcode on OS X
I just updated my command-line tools and Xcode to version 7.0 (released today, I think). When I tried to build the latest beta of Sage from scratch, the following packages did not build: - ecm: log file http://www.math.washington.edu/~palmieri/Sage/ecm-6.4.4.log - gsl: log file http://www.math.washington.edu/~palmieri/Sage/gsl-1.16.log - numpy: log file http://www.math.washington.edu/~palmieri/Sage/numpy-1.8.1.p0.log See http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19232. (Also #19233, #19234, #19235.) It is of course possible that Apple will release updates to Xcode that will fix some of these problems, but I don't know how to predict that. -- John -- 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: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:04 PM, kcrisman wrote: >> >> > it would be useful to revive the discussion of a >> > true SageMath Foundation, separate from SMCI of course, whether >> > incorporated >> > in the US or Europe (or elsewhere), but it sounds like there wasn't >> > currently enough interest in helping with the substantial paperwork >> > involved >> > in this as of yet. But if this existed it might help support some of >> > the >> > other Sage infrastructure needs, beyond the *.math.washington.edu >> > resources >> > this thread was supposed to be about :) >> >> Such a foundation isn't going to happen any time soon, at least not >> with me the one doing it. I talked extensively with a partner at >> Fenwick & West, and was advised that it is currently basically >> impossible for an "Open Source Software Not for profit" to get 501c3 >> status these days in the US. The IRS used to look favorably on such >> > > Wow, that is really depressing. It would be interesting to poll various > US-based OSS organizations that have such foundations (if any exist) to see > how long ago they got such status. Certainly being on a mailing list for UW > is preferable to no option for donating at all! You should be able to get removed from that list -- and I will try to make it so they remove everybody that was added due to donating to Sage Foundation. > > -- > 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 (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: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
> > > > it would be useful to revive the discussion of a > > true SageMath Foundation, separate from SMCI of course, whether > incorporated > > in the US or Europe (or elsewhere), but it sounds like there wasn't > > currently enough interest in helping with the substantial paperwork > involved > > in this as of yet. But if this existed it might help support some of > the > > other Sage infrastructure needs, beyond the *.math.washington.edu > resources > > this thread was supposed to be about :) > > Such a foundation isn't going to happen any time soon, at least not > with me the one doing it. I talked extensively with a partner at > Fenwick & West, and was advised that it is currently basically > impossible for an "Open Source Software Not for profit" to get 501c3 > status these days in the US. The IRS used to look favorably on such > > Wow, that is really depressing. It would be interesting to poll various US-based OSS organizations that have such foundations (if any exist) to see how long ago they got such status. Certainly being on a mailing list for UW is preferable to no option for donating at all! -- 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] Info: installing packages
On 2015-09-17 17:47, John Cremona wrote: I think so: I noticed that the optional package database_cremona_ellcurve has no dependencies file (after I pulled in the beta7 edition of the develop branch). Let me first explain the two kinds of dependencies that "make" supports: there are normal dependencies and order-only dependencies, which are weaker. The syntax is normal dependencies | order-only dependencies * If A has an order-only dependency on B, it simply means that B must be built before A. * If A has a normal dependency on B, it means additionally that A should be rebuilt every time that B gets updated. This is in particular important for libraries: if we upgrade PARI, we should rebuild everything which uses PARI. Now, the defaults are as follows: * For new-style optional packages, the default is an order-only dependency on every standard package. * For other packages, the default is no dependencies. -- 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] Info: installing packages
Hey John, > Is the non-existence of a dependencies file valid for a package with > none? I think so: I noticed that the optional package > database_cremona_ellcurve has no dependencies file (after I pulled in > the beta7 edition of the develop branch). But I also tried "sage -i > database_cremona_ellcurve" and it was happy (i.e. rather verbosely did > nothing, since that was already installed). > > Jeroen has told me that you should have a file with the line "# no dependencies". Best, Travis -- 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] Info: installing packages
On 17 September 2015 at 16:16, William Stein wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Jeroen Demeyer > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> the logic for installing packages in Sage has changed recently. Let me >> explain what changed: >> >> The command "sage -i PKGNAME" now only supports new-style packages. The >> PKGNAME should be a bare package name (no version numbers or URLs or >> whatever). >> >> Packages are now installed *with* dependencies, which means that you can >> actually run "sage -i PKGNAME" right after extracting the Sage sources (or >> running "make distclean") and it should work. Within Sage, the dependencies >> of a package are stored in >> build/pkgs/PKGNAME/dependencies. If PKGNAME is already up-to-date, then >> "sage -i PKGNAME" will do nothing. >> >> The command "sage -f PKGNAME" will force install a package, even if it was >> already installed (the dependencies are installed, but not force installed). >> >> The functionality of the old "sage -f" command was moved to "sage -p", there >> is no replacement for the old "sage -i". So, "sage -p PKGNAME" supports >> new-style and old-style packages (without considering dependencies). For >> old-style packages, the bare package name or a full pathname/URL to a .spkg >> may be given. >> >> Note that old-style packages are deprecated. If you care about an old-style >> package, it should be upgraded to a new-style package. Also, the old-style >> standard and archived packages on the Sage server are no longer considered. >> >> Recall that running "make" will now automatically upgrade new-style optional >> packages which are installed and that "sage -t" will automatically doctest >> new-style optional packages too. >> >> Finally, note that "sage -i" and "sage -f" actually support make targets, >> not just packages. So you can run "sage -f doc" as alternative to "make >> doc-clean && make doc" or "sage -f sagelib" as alternative to "sage -ba", >> but with dependencies. > > Thanks for summarizing all that so well. Agreed. Is the non-existence of a dependencies file valid for a package with none? I think so: I noticed that the optional package database_cremona_ellcurve has no dependencies file (after I pulled in the beta7 edition of the develop branch). But I also tried "sage -i database_cremona_ellcurve" and it was happy (i.e. rather verbosely did nothing, since that was already installed). John > Is this information going to > also go in the docs somewhere (e.g., in the install guide?). > > -- > William (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. -- 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: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
I'm not an expert with configuring a cluster, but I've read good things about "Ansible". Do we have any ansible "experts" among us? I think, this tool is a good fit because it describes "goals" and it's extensible with custom modules (written in Python). My uneducated feeling is that we should really look into it … -- harald On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:13 PM, William Stein wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Volker Braun > wrote: > > I went to a talk by the TravisCI CEO a while ago and one advice that > struck > > a chord was: If you have to log into your server you are doing it wrong. > Its > > of course OK for a one-off machine to debug / play around with, but it > just > > makes administration a time sink. Its better to just erase an instance > and > > recreate it from your orchestration tool. Solves the problem of > documenting > > *what* you changed as a side effect. > > > > On that note, why not openstack / openshift / kubernetes / ...? Of course > > you can create and manage kvm images and/or containers by hand, but why > > reinvent the wheel. > > Let's start fresh! I'm open to any an all ideas for how to setup the > cluster, and *greatly* appreciated your suggestions. > > -- William > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "sage.math users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to sagemath-us...@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > sagemath-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/sagemath-users > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "sage.math users" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to sagemath-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > William (http://wstein.org) > -- Harald Schilly -- SageMath, Inc. https://cloud.sagemath.com Please sign up for a $7/month SageMathCloud membership. Goto Billing tab in Account -> Credit Card -> Add a subscription -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Sage in Mac OSX 11.11 (El Capitan)
Same problem, nobody find a solution ? If yes, please can you tell me how ! Charles Le vendredi 11 septembre 2015 04:48:25 UTC+2, François a écrit : > > Hum, that symbol is in libpython2.7.dylib, operator.so is not linked to > that library. > I am guessing it is supposed to be dlopen-ed from python which would > supply > the symbol. I suspect python will need patching. > Can you start python from a sage shell? > > François > > > On 11/09/2015, at 14:40, Juan Luis Varona > wrote: > > > > > >> El 11 sept 2015, a las 4:24, kcrisman > > escribió: > >> > >> But, usually, new versions of osx can execute already compiled versions > of sage, and this does not happen this time. (I like to have always the > last version of osx in one of my computers, and I do not remember this > problem in the past.) > >> > >> > >> Yes, good point. Can you give us exactly what kind of problems you > encounter with the 10.10 version on 10.11? (If there are any message at > all.) > >> > > > > This is what appears in the Terminal using Sage-6.8.app (compiled for > osx 10.10) under osx 10.11: > > > > - > > > > Last login: Thu Sep 10 18:37:14 on ttys000 > > AirTeXano:~ jvarona$ > '/Applications/Sage-6.8.app/Contents/Resources/sage'/sage --notebook > > Traceback (most recent call last): > > File > "/Applications/Sage-6.8.app/Contents/Resources/sage/src/bin/sage-notebook", > line 7, in > >import argparse > > File > "/Applications/Sage-6.8.app/Contents/Resources/sage/local/lib/python/argparse.py", > > line 85, in > >import collections as _collections > > File > "/Applications/Sage-6.8.app/Contents/Resources/sage/local/lib/python/collections.py", > > line 9, in > >from operator import itemgetter as _itemgetter, eq as _eq > > ImportError: > dlopen(/Applications/Sage-6.8.app/Contents/Resources/sage/local/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/operator.so, > > 2): Symbol not found: __PyUnicodeUCS4_AsDefaultEncodedString > > Referenced from: > /Applications/Sage-6.8.app/Contents/Resources/sage/local/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/operator.so > > > > Expected in: flat namespace > > in > /Applications/Sage-6.8.app/Contents/Resources/sage/local/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/operator.so > > > > AirTeXano:~ jvarona$ > > > > > > > > Juan Luis > > > > > > -- > > 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.
Re: [sage-devel] Info: installing packages
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > Hello, > > the logic for installing packages in Sage has changed recently. Let me > explain what changed: > > The command "sage -i PKGNAME" now only supports new-style packages. The > PKGNAME should be a bare package name (no version numbers or URLs or > whatever). > > Packages are now installed *with* dependencies, which means that you can > actually run "sage -i PKGNAME" right after extracting the Sage sources (or > running "make distclean") and it should work. Within Sage, the dependencies > of a package are stored in > build/pkgs/PKGNAME/dependencies. If PKGNAME is already up-to-date, then > "sage -i PKGNAME" will do nothing. > > The command "sage -f PKGNAME" will force install a package, even if it was > already installed (the dependencies are installed, but not force installed). > > The functionality of the old "sage -f" command was moved to "sage -p", there > is no replacement for the old "sage -i". So, "sage -p PKGNAME" supports > new-style and old-style packages (without considering dependencies). For > old-style packages, the bare package name or a full pathname/URL to a .spkg > may be given. > > Note that old-style packages are deprecated. If you care about an old-style > package, it should be upgraded to a new-style package. Also, the old-style > standard and archived packages on the Sage server are no longer considered. > > Recall that running "make" will now automatically upgrade new-style optional > packages which are installed and that "sage -t" will automatically doctest > new-style optional packages too. > > Finally, note that "sage -i" and "sage -f" actually support make targets, > not just packages. So you can run "sage -f doc" as alternative to "make > doc-clean && make doc" or "sage -f sagelib" as alternative to "sage -ba", > but with dependencies. Thanks for summarizing all that so well. Is this information going to also go in the docs somewhere (e.g., in the install guide?). -- William (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: Coercion between finite fields
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Nils Bruin wrote: > On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 2:54:15 AM UTC-7, Simon King wrote: >> >> The real problem here is that *conversion* gives rise to an error >> that mentions *coercion*. >> >> sage: K. = GF(25) >> sage: L. = GF(25) >> sage: K(y) >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> ... >> TypeError: unable to coerce from a finite field other than the prime >> subfield >> >> That's clearly a bug. Conversion should work, even if it isn't canonical >> and thus doesn't qualify as coercion! > > > I don't think it's "clearly a bug". Conversions are *allowed* to work when > there is a non-canonical map (i.e., a section map back that's not a > morphism, as for ZZ -> ZZ/p ) but I don't think conversions are *required* > to work when such a map exists. That's right. Conversions are almost always dangerous and *not* something you want to use. It's much, much better to define an explicit morphism and use that. We have implemented conversions in many cases, but if you use them, you're increasing the chances of a very subtle bug by an order of magnitude. Here's what you should do: K. = GF(25) L. = GF(25) phi = K.hom([y]) phi(x + 3) And this lets you do anything that makes sense, but protects you from doing wrong stuff like this: psi = K.hom([y^2]) [boom] https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/4a5f0542-5873-4eed-a85c-a18c706e8bcd/files/support/2015-09-17-080944-conversions.sagews > What would the condition be? That the minimal polynomials of x,y over GF(5) > are identical? That the minimal poly of y has a root over K and then just > choose a root (and let the conversion system try to keep things sane)? > > Do we expect for > N. = NumberField(x^5-x+1) > M. = NumberField(x^5 + 5*x^4 + 8*x^3 + 4*x^2 - 1) > > that > > N(b) > > should work? (there is actually less ambiguity there!) Explicit is better than implicit. Use hom. If I were doing it all over, I would very likely remove coercion entirely and make hom even better than it already is. Coercion is a bad idea and source of very subtle bugs. William > > -- > 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 (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: Coercion between finite fields
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 2:54:15 AM UTC-7, Simon King wrote: > > The real problem here is that *conversion* gives rise to an error > that mentions *coercion*. > > sage: K. = GF(25) > sage: L. = GF(25) > sage: K(y) > Traceback (most recent call last): > ... > TypeError: unable to coerce from a finite field other than the prime > subfield > > That's clearly a bug. Conversion should work, even if it isn't canonical > and thus doesn't qualify as coercion! > I don't think it's "clearly a bug". Conversions are *allowed* to work when there is a non-canonical map (i.e., a section map back that's not a morphism, as for ZZ -> ZZ/p ) but I don't think conversions are *required* to work when such a map exists. What would the condition be? That the minimal polynomials of x,y over GF(5) are identical? That the minimal poly of y has a root over K and then just choose a root (and let the conversion system try to keep things sane)? Do we expect for N. = NumberField(x^5-x+1) M. = NumberField(x^5 + 5*x^4 + 8*x^3 + 4*x^2 - 1) that N(b) should work? (there is actually less ambiguity there!) -- 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: Coercion between finite fields
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Simon King wrote: > Hi! > > On 2015-09-17, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> On 2015-09-16 16:43, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I guess one of the issue is that there is no canonical map between two >>> different representations of the same finite field (so no coercion). >> >> The question is really: is the map between representations of the same >> finite field, which differ only in variable name, "canonical"? > > I think that it is in the same way canonical as we have a > name-preserving map between polynomial rings. > > The real problem here is that *conversion* gives rise to an error > that mentions *coercion*. > > sage: K. = GF(25) > sage: L. = GF(25) > sage: K(y) > Traceback (most recent call last): > ... > TypeError: unable to coerce from a finite field other than the prime > subfield > > That's clearly a bug. Conversion should work, even if it isn't canonical > and thus doesn't qualify as coercion! That may be because K(y) used to actually be called "coercion" in Sage, and it didn't get changed in this one place when Robert Bradshaw (?) introduced the name "conversion" for non-canonical coercions. When I wrote the first coercion model I had two notions: - coercions -- like K(y) - canonical coercion -- like x + 5, which converts the integer 5 to GF(25) I think Robert renamed these to: - coercion --> conversion - canonical coercion --> coercion which would lead to confusion like you're seeing. > > Is there no ticket for it already? I think I have seen that issue > before. > > Cheers, > Simon > > -- > 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 (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: Coercion between finite fields
Equals is not transitive in Sage. Addition (of floating point numbers) is not commutative either. And many, many other things that are different from our perfect abstractions when you try to model infinite objects in a finite machine. I definitely do not consider this a bug: sage: K1 = GF(8,'x') sage: K2 = GF(8,'y') sage: K1(1) == K2(1) False It is because there is no "canonical coercion" (renamed now-a-days to "coercion") between K1 and K2, so there's no way to compare elements automatically. == always says false when it can't decide right now. The other option is to throw an exception, which is very painful in code. On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > This one is also fun: > > sage: K = GF(8, 'a') > sage: K(1) == ZZ(1) == QQ(1) > True This follows exactly the same rule above: in each case above there is a canonical codomain that 1 gets mapped to that can be used to compare. > sage: K(1) == QQ(1) > False There is no canonical map from K and QQ into something, so no comparison is possible. William > > > -- > 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 (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] Info: installing packages
Hello, the logic for installing packages in Sage has changed recently. Let me explain what changed: The command "sage -i PKGNAME" now only supports new-style packages. The PKGNAME should be a bare package name (no version numbers or URLs or whatever). Packages are now installed *with* dependencies, which means that you can actually run "sage -i PKGNAME" right after extracting the Sage sources (or running "make distclean") and it should work. Within Sage, the dependencies of a package are stored in build/pkgs/PKGNAME/dependencies. If PKGNAME is already up-to-date, then "sage -i PKGNAME" will do nothing. The command "sage -f PKGNAME" will force install a package, even if it was already installed (the dependencies are installed, but not force installed). The functionality of the old "sage -f" command was moved to "sage -p", there is no replacement for the old "sage -i". So, "sage -p PKGNAME" supports new-style and old-style packages (without considering dependencies). For old-style packages, the bare package name or a full pathname/URL to a .spkg may be given. Note that old-style packages are deprecated. If you care about an old-style package, it should be upgraded to a new-style package. Also, the old-style standard and archived packages on the Sage server are no longer considered. Recall that running "make" will now automatically upgrade new-style optional packages which are installed and that "sage -t" will automatically doctest new-style optional packages too. Finally, note that "sage -i" and "sage -f" actually support make targets, not just packages. So you can run "sage -f doc" as alternative to "make doc-clean && make doc" or "sage -f sagelib" as alternative to "sage -ba", but with dependencies. Jeroen. -- 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: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:34 AM, kcrisman wrote: >> >> What the hell. You too? It's even worse than I thought, basically >> everybody here has had a share of ODK's money and is thankful for it. >> > > Ahem - definitely not getting ODK money here :) nor are probably 95% (?) of > Sage developers. But given that there seem to be few or no strings attached > to it other than making Sage play more nicely with other mathematical OSS, I > guess people are allowed to be thankful? I'm thankful that people who really > know how to code well will be able to do those things. If I understand > correctly, ODK is way bigger than Sage, also, so I'm thankful that GAP and > other programs that provide much of the most technical mathematical > functionality in many areas of Sage will be able to get better and work > better together with Sage. It is unfortunate that there aren't other > funding sources as well, but as we have seen that is just the state of > things. > > Along those lines, whenever William is able to come up for air from SMC > (perhaps the new year?) Unfortunately, it'll only get worse then, since I'll have to do both running SMC, developing SMC, *and* teaching. At least the Joint Math meetings are a mile from my house this time :-) > it would be useful to revive the discussion of a > true SageMath Foundation, separate from SMCI of course, whether incorporated > in the US or Europe (or elsewhere), but it sounds like there wasn't > currently enough interest in helping with the substantial paperwork involved > in this as of yet. But if this existed it might help support some of the > other Sage infrastructure needs, beyond the *.math.washington.edu resources > this thread was supposed to be about :) Such a foundation isn't going to happen any time soon, at least not with me the one doing it. I talked extensively with a partner at Fenwick & West, and was advised that it is currently basically impossible for an "Open Source Software Not for profit" to get 501c3 status these days in the US. The IRS used to look favorably on such things a few years ago (e.g., Mozilla!), but now looks very unfavorably on open source as being "not for profit" (things that are political can change dramatically from one point in time to another). I didn't believe this could be the case, but the Fenwick & West partner is a top expert who is very familiar with what is going on, and she repeatedly clarified that it is. She suggested starting a 501c3 that has nothing to do with Sage, and also doesn't have the word "Sage" in its title would be the only reasonable strategy... and maybe later it would get involved with supporting Sage. Even doing that, the work involved is more than starting a company, and the rules are tricky involving taxes, so I definitely don't have the time to do that now. For all it's cons, University of Washington does at least administer the "Sage Foundation" budget very professionally, they don't charge anything in overhead (absolutely 100% of donations are spent on sage activities with no cut at all), and they take care of all the dispersement of funds to people (e.g., participants of "Women in Sage" Sage days -- often funded from this, bits of hardware we need for a conference, etc.).One drawback is their stupid "please donate again" mailing list. - William -- William (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: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
> > > What the hell. You too? It's even worse than I thought, basically > everybody here has had a share of ODK's money and is thankful for it. > > Ahem - definitely not getting ODK money here :) nor are probably 95% (?) of Sage developers. But given that there seem to be few or no strings attached to it other than making Sage play more nicely with other mathematical OSS, I guess people are allowed to be thankful? I'm thankful that people who really know how to code well will be able to do those things. If I understand correctly, ODK is way bigger than Sage, also, so I'm thankful that GAP and other programs that provide much of the most technical mathematical functionality in many areas of Sage will be able to get better and work better together with Sage. It is unfortunate that there aren't other funding sources as well, but as we have seen that is just the state of things. Along those lines, whenever William is able to come up for air from SMC (perhaps the new year?) it would be useful to revive the discussion of a true SageMath Foundation, separate from SMCI of course, whether incorporated in the US or Europe (or elsewhere), but it sounds like there wasn't currently enough interest in helping with the substantial paperwork involved in this as of yet. But if this existed it might help support some of the other Sage infrastructure needs, beyond the *.math.washington.edu resources this thread was supposed to be about :) -- 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: Coercion between finite fields
This one is also fun: sage: K = GF(8, 'a') sage: K(1) == ZZ(1) == QQ(1) True sage: K(1) == QQ(1) False -- 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: Coercion between finite fields
Another instance of our non-transitive equality sage: K1 = GF(8,'x') sage: K2 = GF(8,'y') sage: K1.one() == 1 == K2.one() True On 17/09/15 07:19, Nathann Cohen wrote: Here is another discovery after 15 minutes of debugging: sage: K1 = GF(8,'x') sage: K2 = GF(8,'y') sage: K1(1) == K2(1) False Nathann On 17 September 2015 at 12:15, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: On 17/09/15 06:53, Simon King wrote: Hi! On 2015-09-17, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2015-09-16 16:43, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: Hi, I guess one of the issue is that there is no canonical map between two different representations of the same finite field (so no coercion). The question is really: is the map between representations of the same finite field, which differ only in variable name, "canonical"? I think that it is in the same way canonical as we have a name-preserving map between polynomial rings. The real problem here is that *conversion* gives rise to an error that mentions *coercion*. sage: K. = GF(25) sage: L. = GF(25) sage: K(y) Traceback (most recent call last): ... TypeError: unable to coerce from a finite field other than the prime subfield That's clearly a bug. Conversion should work, even if it isn't canonical and thus doesn't qualify as coercion! Is there no ticket for it already? I think I have seen that issue before. +1 The behavior should be similar to sage: Rx. = ZZ[] sage: Ry. = ZZ[] sage: Rx(3*y**2 + 1) 3*x^2 + 1 sage: x+y Traceback (most recent call last): ... TypeError: unsupported operand parent(s) for '+': 'Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Integer Ring' and 'Univariate Polynomial Ring in y over Integer Ring' Vincent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/1rIMPfChUM4/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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] Coercion between finite fields
On 2015-09-17 12:32, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: Don't we have a random keyword as well? Not a random keyword, but a modulus="random" argument (there are several more algorithms to choose a modulus) -- 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] Coercion between finite fields
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 12:24:07 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2015-09-17 11:56, Volker Braun wrote: > > Two comments: > > > > A) There is no such thing as "different finite fields of the same size > > with the same generator name" > > Of course there is: > > sage: GF(8, 'a') is GF(8, 'a', modulus="adleman-lenstra") > False > Don't we have a random keyword as well? -- 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] Coercion between finite fields
On 2015-09-17 11:56, Volker Braun wrote: Two comments: A) There is no such thing as "different finite fields of the same size with the same generator name" Of course there is: sage: GF(8, 'a') is GF(8, 'a', modulus="adleman-lenstra") False -- 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: Coercion between finite fields
Here is another discovery after 15 minutes of debugging: sage: K1 = GF(8,'x') sage: K2 = GF(8,'y') sage: K1(1) == K2(1) False Nathann On 17 September 2015 at 12:15, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 17/09/15 06:53, Simon King wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> On 2015-09-17, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> >>> On 2015-09-16 16:43, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: Hi, I guess one of the issue is that there is no canonical map between two different representations of the same finite field (so no coercion). >>> >>> >>> The question is really: is the map between representations of the same >>> finite field, which differ only in variable name, "canonical"? >> >> >> I think that it is in the same way canonical as we have a >> name-preserving map between polynomial rings. >> >> The real problem here is that *conversion* gives rise to an error >> that mentions *coercion*. >> >>sage: K. = GF(25) >>sage: L. = GF(25) >>sage: K(y) >>Traceback (most recent call last): >>... >>TypeError: unable to coerce from a finite field other than the prime >> subfield >> >> That's clearly a bug. Conversion should work, even if it isn't canonical >> and thus doesn't qualify as coercion! >> >> Is there no ticket for it already? I think I have seen that issue >> before. > > > +1 > > The behavior should be similar to > > sage: Rx. = ZZ[] > sage: Ry. = ZZ[] > sage: Rx(3*y**2 + 1) > 3*x^2 + 1 > sage: x+y > Traceback (most recent call last): > ... > TypeError: unsupported operand parent(s) for '+': 'Univariate Polynomial > Ring in x over Integer Ring' and 'Univariate Polynomial Ring in y over > Integer Ring' > > Vincent > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/1rIMPfChUM4/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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: Coercion between finite fields
On 17/09/15 06:53, Simon King wrote: Hi! On 2015-09-17, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2015-09-16 16:43, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: Hi, I guess one of the issue is that there is no canonical map between two different representations of the same finite field (so no coercion). The question is really: is the map between representations of the same finite field, which differ only in variable name, "canonical"? I think that it is in the same way canonical as we have a name-preserving map between polynomial rings. The real problem here is that *conversion* gives rise to an error that mentions *coercion*. sage: K. = GF(25) sage: L. = GF(25) sage: K(y) Traceback (most recent call last): ... TypeError: unable to coerce from a finite field other than the prime subfield That's clearly a bug. Conversion should work, even if it isn't canonical and thus doesn't qualify as coercion! Is there no ticket for it already? I think I have seen that issue before. +1 The behavior should be similar to sage: Rx. = ZZ[] sage: Ry. = ZZ[] sage: Rx(3*y**2 + 1) 3*x^2 + 1 sage: x+y Traceback (most recent call last): ... TypeError: unsupported operand parent(s) for '+': 'Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Integer Ring' and 'Univariate Polynomial Ring in y over Integer Ring' Vincent -- 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] Coercion between finite fields
Two comments: A) There is no such thing as "different finite fields of the same size with the same generator name" sage: GF(4, 'a') is GF(4, 'a') True sage: GF(4, 'a') is GF(4, 'b') False There is no way to cast finite field elements to other finite field elements apart from the prime subfield case. B) The ambiguity in mapping GF(p^n) to itself is of course super-important and gives rise to lots of interesting mathematics. -- 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: Coercion between finite fields
Hi! On 2015-09-17, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2015-09-16 16:43, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I guess one of the issue is that there is no canonical map between two >> different representations of the same finite field (so no coercion). > > The question is really: is the map between representations of the same > finite field, which differ only in variable name, "canonical"? I think that it is in the same way canonical as we have a name-preserving map between polynomial rings. The real problem here is that *conversion* gives rise to an error that mentions *coercion*. sage: K. = GF(25) sage: L. = GF(25) sage: K(y) Traceback (most recent call last): ... TypeError: unable to coerce from a finite field other than the prime subfield That's clearly a bug. Conversion should work, even if it isn't canonical and thus doesn't qualify as coercion! Is there no ticket for it already? I think I have seen that issue before. Cheers, Simon -- 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] Coercion between finite fields
> The question is really: is the map between representations of the same > finite field, which differ only in variable name, "canonical"? I would say that there is no big risk to do that, though I am not at all knowledgeable on those parts of the code. If it can be dangerous but can be detected, however, it would be cool if an error message could hint at it, e.g. "the generators have different names". Though really, "checking" things by comparing the strings used to describe generators does not look very reliable either. Especially since because of this behaviour I will now start using the same string 'a' everywhere, just to avoid it. 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] Re: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
On 17 September 2015 at 10:26, Nathann Cohen wrote: >> that grant (e.g. for me, 3 person-months over 4 years which translates >> into about 2 days per week) are required to keep time sheets so that That should read: 2 days per month (it is 1/16). > > What the hell. You too? It's even worse than I thought, basically > everybody here has had a share of ODK's money and is thankful for it. It's not such a big deal, just one signature on a piece of paper (or electronic) per month -- and in my case the signature will be that of my head of department who certainly will not ask me just what I do all day. John > > 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] Re: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
> that grant (e.g. for me, 3 person-months over 4 years which translates > into about 2 days per week) are required to keep time sheets so that What the hell. You too? It's even worse than I thought, basically everybody here has had a share of ODK's money and is thankful for it. 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] Re: sage -n jupyter
On 2015-09-14 22:18, Volker Braun wrote: will be in the next beta ...if somebody reviews #19182. -- 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] Coercion between finite fields
On 2015-09-16 16:43, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: Hi, I guess one of the issue is that there is no canonical map between two different representations of the same finite field (so no coercion). The question is really: is the map between representations of the same finite field, which differ only in variable name, "canonical"? -- 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: *.math.washington.edu hardware resources
On 16 September 2015 at 19:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On 16 September 2015 at 10:36, Nathann Cohen wrote: >> Dima, >> >>> E.g. as far as I am concerned, it's thanks to ODK, which pays 50% of my >>> salary, that I can set aside time for this. >> >> You are of course welcome (and probably bound) to spend 50% of your working >> time >> on whatever is in OpenDreamKit's plan. >> >> Now, I'm sorry to say that I read Nicolas' message as an accountant's >> attempt to >> try to fit in his report something that has not even been done yet, and does >> not >> seem (according to him) to clearly enter its scope. Which is why I got the >> impression that he planned to stamp 'ODK' on whatever happened to pass by, >> >> to claim later that it had been done 'thanks to ODK'. > > No, your impression is wrong. It is an unfortunate reality that EU > (and other) grants come with all sorts of bells and whistles attached, > and one needs accounting tricks to bend the rules they set up to spend > money on what's important. And maintaining UW hardware for Sage is > important for success of ODK, there is no question about it. > > If ODK did not materialize, there is no telling what sorts of > implications it would have on Sage as a project, but surely nothing > positive. It is a legal requirement for work supported financially by the ODK grant -- which definitely include's Dima's 50% time -- to acknowledge that support. Moreover Dima and others whose time is supported even in small part by that grant (e.g. for me, 3 person-months over 4 years which translates into about 2 days per week) are required to keep time sheets so that an auditor can be satisfied that the money paid by the EC for that timew has been spent on what it was provided for. Yes, it is very bureaucratic but the benefits outweight that! John > > Please try to understand, once again, that you are at CNRS in a very > fortunate and exceptional position, and many people are much less > lucky. Try to get a grant and manage it to see my point :-) > > Dima > >> >> I'm sure that there are enough original ideas in ODK's project to keep >> everybody >> busy for 5 years, and I surely won't blame you for working hard on them. >> >> Nathann >> >> P.S.: nothing indeed prevents you from working on topics unrelated to ODK >> during >> the other 50% of your time, e.g. I am not paid to write Sage code. > > -- > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "sage.math users" group. > To post to this group, send email to sagemath-us...@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sagemath-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sagemath-users > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage.math users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sagemath-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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.
