[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

['Martin R' via sage-devel]

I narrowed it down to a single commit (which turns out to be a single 
ticket), see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/26929#comment:9

I am unable to debug this further though.

Martin

Am Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2018 20:57:27 UTC+1 schrieb John H Palmieri:
>
> What is the extent of the bug? Does it require forming a polynomial ring 
> whose coefficients are a BooleanPolynomialRing? That's pretty specific. If 
> the problem arises more generally, with other rings as coefficients, then 
> it could be a blocker.
>
>
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:49:30 AM UTC-8, Emmanuel Charpentier 
> wrote:
>>
>> Even considering the pivotal rôle of polynomials and fraction fields 
>> thereof ?
>>
>> Le jeudi 20 décembre 2018 20:47:03 UTC+1, John H Palmieri a écrit :
>>>
>>> Critical but it's not a blocker, in my opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, Emmanuel 
>>> Charpentier wrote:

 This  
 seems 
 seems to be a showstopper, enough to trump the best laid out plans of 
 mice, 
 men and mathematicians.

 No ticket yet, but I agree that this seems critical. 

 Le mardi 18 décembre 2018 12:50:44 UTC+1, E. Madison Bray a écrit :
>
> As pointed out by Samuel last month [1] the transition freeze (i.e. 
> new package versions) for the next major Debian release (buster) is 
> coming up January 12 [2].  This is important for Sage and those 
> working to package Sage for Debian, as it will impact what version of 
> Sage is available in Debian, and by extension big name Debian-based 
> distributions such as Ubuntu and Mint that carry with them probably 
> the majority of users on Linux. 
>
> Setting what version of Sage will be in Debian, prior to the freeze, 
> is not such a big deal in its own right as not many packages depend on 
> Sage.  However, it does impact what versions of Sage's many 
> dependencies can be included, and GAP perhaps has the largest impact 
> there, as there are also many packages that depend on GAP (mostly GAP 
> packages). 
>
> The biggest sticking point right now to packaging Sage for Debian is 
> thus what version of GAP can go in Debian as well (and I don't think 
> the GAP community will be too happy about it if the GAP version gets 
> held back because of Sage; though the more likely outcome there is 
> that Sage gets held back (or excluded entirely) if it can't work with 
> the new GAP). 
>
> Thus some of us have been working hard to find a working convergence 
> between Sage and GAP 4.10.x.  That work is nearly ready [3] (pending 
> some needed patches to GAP), and given the normal rate of Sage's 
> release cycle it would be a shame to have this work excluded from Sage 
> 8.5, considering that it is the major blocker for Debian. 
>
> Therefore I propose doing a few more rounds of Sage 8.5 pre-releases 
> specifically with the focus of upgrading GAP: Completing #22626 which 
> I think will be ready-enough by tomorrow (I would prefer to wait until 
> GAP 4.10.1 is out but starting testing now would be better) and 
> sending it to the patchbots, while putting a hold on any other 
> non-critical fixes. 
>
> If for some reason that's impossible then we should quickly release a 
> Sage 8.6 that is focused primarily on GAP 4.10 compatibility. 
>
> Thanks, 
> Erik 
>
>
>
> [1] 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/ztLmB2xWFig/kWk7LGycCQAJ 
> [2] https://release.debian.org/buster/freeze_policy.html 
> [3] https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22626 
>


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] problem running Sage-8.4 app on MacOS 10.14, Mojave

[darwin doppelganger]

Back on Oct 29, I mentioned on ask.sagemath.org a problem running Sage on 
MacOS 10.14, Mojave 
.
 I 
see now that someone else has responded with what looks like the same 
issue. I thought I would mention it here because it looks like you are 
contemplating a new release.

I am now running macOS Mojave, 10.14.2 on a 15 inch 2017 MacBook Pro. When 
I execute the app from sage-8.4-OSX_10.13.6-x86_64.app.dmg, I get the same 
behavior as before, but in the meantime, I have switched over to the 
Jupyter notebook by default and I am getting a message from Sage saying 
"Jupyter server failed to start". On the console, I get a message saying:

Error: Tried to use Sage's Python which was not yet installed.
> If this was called from an spkg-install script for another 
> package you should add $(PYTHON) as a dependency in 
> build/pkgs//dependencies


I am still able to fall back to using sage-8.4.rc1-OSX_10.13.6_x86_64.app 
with Jupyter and it works OK except for taking about a minute or so to 
start while the browser icon "bounces" in the dock. The console message 
from my session with sage-8.4.rc1 says:

[I 20:27:36.243 NotebookApp] Using MathJax: nbextensions/mathjax/MathJax.js
> [I 20:27:36.716 NotebookApp] Serving notebooks from local directory: 
> /Users/danielputnam/Documents/sage
> [I 20:27:36.716 NotebookApp] 0 active kernels
> [I 20:27:36.716 NotebookApp] The Jupyter Notebook is running at:
> [I 20:27:36.716 NotebookApp] 
> http://localhost:/?token=cb44bbd926bd84757e11180fd23af19e631499a27c6ecc8f
> [I 20:27:36.716 NotebookApp] Use Control-C to stop this server and shut 
> down all kernels (twice to skip confirmation).
> [C 20:27:36.719 NotebookApp] 
> 
> Copy/paste this URL into your browser when you connect for the first 
> time,
> to login with a token:
> 
> http://localhost:/?token=cb44bbd926bd84757e11180fd23af19e631499a27c6ecc8f&token=cb44bbd926bd84757e11180fd23af19e631499a27c6ecc8f
> [I 20:29:11.450 NotebookApp] Accepting one-time-token-authenticated 
> connection from ::1
> [I 20:29:41.462 NotebookApp] 302 GET 
> /?token=cb44bbd926bd84757e11180fd23af19e631499a27c6ecc8f&token=cb44bbd926bd84757e11180fd23af19e631499a27c6ecc8f
>  
> (::1) 0.33ms
> [I 20:29:53.429 NotebookApp] Kernel started: 
> 3895a9a5-866e-46a7-9794-2e77241f522b
> [I 20:29:58.079 NotebookApp] Adapting to protocol v5.1 for kernel 
> 3895a9a5-866e-46a7-9794-2e77241f522b
> [I 20:33:53.430 NotebookApp] Saving file at /dec9.ipynb


I don't know if this matters because I'm not compiling anything, but my mac 
is one of those that lack a  /usr/include directory as mentioned in #26713 
.


 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

[Nils Bruin]

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:17:54 AM UTC-8, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Le 20/12/2018 à 17:40, Vincent Delecroix a écrit : 
> > My use case is that I have one billion of number field elements that 
> > I want to plot. That goes through __float__ that calls 
> > numerical_approx that goes through conversion to MPFR real field. 
> > 
> > Considering my use case, I know how to make it faster (implement 
> > __float__ on nf elements). Though I thought I would also make the 
> > general real floating point conversion faster and I failed. 
>
> Computing embeddings to specified precision can be remarkably tricky, so I 
think it depends a bit on what you want to use this for. If it's just for 
plotting, you are probably not interested in knowing that basically all 
digits computed are correct. However, for general float semantics, we 
probably SHOULD guarantee that. It looks like some gains should be 
achievable because presently there just seems to be coercion overhead, but 
for a really "fast" conversion I think you might want to abandon the idea 
of using the general purpose coercion. For your special purpose you can 
probably do *much* better (I imagine just taking the appropriate Q-linear 
combination of the embedding of a basis might do -- generically that is 
certainly not the case. Interesting algebraic numbers tend to be 
numerically very poorly conditioned).

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[John H Palmieri]

What is the extent of the bug? Does it require forming a polynomial ring 
whose coefficients are a BooleanPolynomialRing? That's pretty specific. If 
the problem arises more generally, with other rings as coefficients, then 
it could be a blocker.


On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:49:30 AM UTC-8, Emmanuel Charpentier 
wrote:
>
> Even considering the pivotal rôle of polynomials and fraction fields 
> thereof ?
>
> Le jeudi 20 décembre 2018 20:47:03 UTC+1, John H Palmieri a écrit :
>>
>> Critical but it's not a blocker, in my opinion.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, Emmanuel Charpentier 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This  seems 
>>> seems to be a showstopper, enough to trump the best laid out plans of mice, 
>>> men and mathematicians.
>>>
>>> No ticket yet, but I agree that this seems critical. 
>>>
>>> Le mardi 18 décembre 2018 12:50:44 UTC+1, E. Madison Bray a écrit :

 As pointed out by Samuel last month [1] the transition freeze (i.e. 
 new package versions) for the next major Debian release (buster) is 
 coming up January 12 [2].  This is important for Sage and those 
 working to package Sage for Debian, as it will impact what version of 
 Sage is available in Debian, and by extension big name Debian-based 
 distributions such as Ubuntu and Mint that carry with them probably 
 the majority of users on Linux. 

 Setting what version of Sage will be in Debian, prior to the freeze, 
 is not such a big deal in its own right as not many packages depend on 
 Sage.  However, it does impact what versions of Sage's many 
 dependencies can be included, and GAP perhaps has the largest impact 
 there, as there are also many packages that depend on GAP (mostly GAP 
 packages). 

 The biggest sticking point right now to packaging Sage for Debian is 
 thus what version of GAP can go in Debian as well (and I don't think 
 the GAP community will be too happy about it if the GAP version gets 
 held back because of Sage; though the more likely outcome there is 
 that Sage gets held back (or excluded entirely) if it can't work with 
 the new GAP). 

 Thus some of us have been working hard to find a working convergence 
 between Sage and GAP 4.10.x.  That work is nearly ready [3] (pending 
 some needed patches to GAP), and given the normal rate of Sage's 
 release cycle it would be a shame to have this work excluded from Sage 
 8.5, considering that it is the major blocker for Debian. 

 Therefore I propose doing a few more rounds of Sage 8.5 pre-releases 
 specifically with the focus of upgrading GAP: Completing #22626 which 
 I think will be ready-enough by tomorrow (I would prefer to wait until 
 GAP 4.10.1 is out but starting testing now would be better) and 
 sending it to the patchbots, while putting a hold on any other 
 non-critical fixes. 

 If for some reason that's impossible then we should quickly release a 
 Sage 8.6 that is focused primarily on GAP 4.10 compatibility. 

 Thanks, 
 Erik 



 [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/ztLmB2xWFig/kWk7LGycCQAJ 
 [2] https://release.debian.org/buster/freeze_policy.html 
 [3] https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22626 

>>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

Even considering the pivotal rôle of polynomials and fraction fields 
thereof ?

Le jeudi 20 décembre 2018 20:47:03 UTC+1, John H Palmieri a écrit :
>
> Critical but it's not a blocker, in my opinion.
>
>
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, Emmanuel Charpentier 
> wrote:
>>
>> This  seems 
>> seems to be a showstopper, enough to trump the best laid out plans of mice, 
>> men and mathematicians.
>>
>> No ticket yet, but I agree that this seems critical. 
>>
>> Le mardi 18 décembre 2018 12:50:44 UTC+1, E. Madison Bray a écrit :
>>>
>>> As pointed out by Samuel last month [1] the transition freeze (i.e. 
>>> new package versions) for the next major Debian release (buster) is 
>>> coming up January 12 [2].  This is important for Sage and those 
>>> working to package Sage for Debian, as it will impact what version of 
>>> Sage is available in Debian, and by extension big name Debian-based 
>>> distributions such as Ubuntu and Mint that carry with them probably 
>>> the majority of users on Linux. 
>>>
>>> Setting what version of Sage will be in Debian, prior to the freeze, 
>>> is not such a big deal in its own right as not many packages depend on 
>>> Sage.  However, it does impact what versions of Sage's many 
>>> dependencies can be included, and GAP perhaps has the largest impact 
>>> there, as there are also many packages that depend on GAP (mostly GAP 
>>> packages). 
>>>
>>> The biggest sticking point right now to packaging Sage for Debian is 
>>> thus what version of GAP can go in Debian as well (and I don't think 
>>> the GAP community will be too happy about it if the GAP version gets 
>>> held back because of Sage; though the more likely outcome there is 
>>> that Sage gets held back (or excluded entirely) if it can't work with 
>>> the new GAP). 
>>>
>>> Thus some of us have been working hard to find a working convergence 
>>> between Sage and GAP 4.10.x.  That work is nearly ready [3] (pending 
>>> some needed patches to GAP), and given the normal rate of Sage's 
>>> release cycle it would be a shame to have this work excluded from Sage 
>>> 8.5, considering that it is the major blocker for Debian. 
>>>
>>> Therefore I propose doing a few more rounds of Sage 8.5 pre-releases 
>>> specifically with the focus of upgrading GAP: Completing #22626 which 
>>> I think will be ready-enough by tomorrow (I would prefer to wait until 
>>> GAP 4.10.1 is out but starting testing now would be better) and 
>>> sending it to the patchbots, while putting a hold on any other 
>>> non-critical fixes. 
>>>
>>> If for some reason that's impossible then we should quickly release a 
>>> Sage 8.6 that is focused primarily on GAP 4.10 compatibility. 
>>>
>>> Thanks, 
>>> Erik 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/ztLmB2xWFig/kWk7LGycCQAJ 
>>> [2] https://release.debian.org/buster/freeze_policy.html 
>>> [3] https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22626 
>>>
>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[John H Palmieri]

Critical but it's not a blocker, in my opinion.


On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, Emmanuel Charpentier 
wrote:
>
> This  seems 
> seems to be a showstopper, enough to trump the best laid out plans of mice, 
> men and mathematicians.
>
> No ticket yet, but I agree that this seems critical. 
>
> Le mardi 18 décembre 2018 12:50:44 UTC+1, E. Madison Bray a écrit :
>>
>> As pointed out by Samuel last month [1] the transition freeze (i.e. 
>> new package versions) for the next major Debian release (buster) is 
>> coming up January 12 [2].  This is important for Sage and those 
>> working to package Sage for Debian, as it will impact what version of 
>> Sage is available in Debian, and by extension big name Debian-based 
>> distributions such as Ubuntu and Mint that carry with them probably 
>> the majority of users on Linux. 
>>
>> Setting what version of Sage will be in Debian, prior to the freeze, 
>> is not such a big deal in its own right as not many packages depend on 
>> Sage.  However, it does impact what versions of Sage's many 
>> dependencies can be included, and GAP perhaps has the largest impact 
>> there, as there are also many packages that depend on GAP (mostly GAP 
>> packages). 
>>
>> The biggest sticking point right now to packaging Sage for Debian is 
>> thus what version of GAP can go in Debian as well (and I don't think 
>> the GAP community will be too happy about it if the GAP version gets 
>> held back because of Sage; though the more likely outcome there is 
>> that Sage gets held back (or excluded entirely) if it can't work with 
>> the new GAP). 
>>
>> Thus some of us have been working hard to find a working convergence 
>> between Sage and GAP 4.10.x.  That work is nearly ready [3] (pending 
>> some needed patches to GAP), and given the normal rate of Sage's 
>> release cycle it would be a shame to have this work excluded from Sage 
>> 8.5, considering that it is the major blocker for Debian. 
>>
>> Therefore I propose doing a few more rounds of Sage 8.5 pre-releases 
>> specifically with the focus of upgrading GAP: Completing #22626 which 
>> I think will be ready-enough by tomorrow (I would prefer to wait until 
>> GAP 4.10.1 is out but starting testing now would be better) and 
>> sending it to the patchbots, while putting a hold on any other 
>> non-critical fixes. 
>>
>> If for some reason that's impossible then we should quickly release a 
>> Sage 8.6 that is focused primarily on GAP 4.10 compatibility. 
>>
>> Thanks, 
>> Erik 
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/ztLmB2xWFig/kWk7LGycCQAJ 
>> [2] https://release.debian.org/buster/freeze_policy.html 
>> [3] https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22626 
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: Changes in polynomial quotient ring are intended?

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

I agree that this seems a critical bug. Would you mind filing a ticket with 
importance "critical" ?

Le mercredi 19 décembre 2018 20:11:25 UTC+1, Jörg-Volker a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> in version 8.4 this example doesn't work anymore as it did at least until 
> version 8.2:
> varl = ['x0', 'x1', 'x2', 'x3']
> B = BooleanPolynomialRing(names = varl)
> B.inject_variables(verbose=False)
> P. = PolynomialRing(B)
> Byte. = P.quotient_ring( p^4 + p + 1 )
> X = B.gens()
> x = Byte(list(X))
> E = x^2
> print( E )
> type(Byte)
>
> Previously the outcome was
> x3*t^3 + (x1 + x3)*t^2 + x2*t + x0 + x2
>  'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_quotient_ring.PolynomialQuotientRing_generic_with_category'
> >
> so the result of `x^2` is also in the quotient ring. In version 8.4 I see
> x3*t^6 + x2*t^4 + x1*t^2 + x0
> 
> If this change in behaviour is intended how would I have to modify my 
> example in order to get the same results as before?
>
> Regards, Jörg.
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

This  seems 
seems to be a showstopper, enough to trump the best laid out plans of mice, 
men and mathematicians.

No ticket yet, but I agree that this seems critical. 

Le mardi 18 décembre 2018 12:50:44 UTC+1, E. Madison Bray a écrit :
>
> As pointed out by Samuel last month [1] the transition freeze (i.e. 
> new package versions) for the next major Debian release (buster) is 
> coming up January 12 [2].  This is important for Sage and those 
> working to package Sage for Debian, as it will impact what version of 
> Sage is available in Debian, and by extension big name Debian-based 
> distributions such as Ubuntu and Mint that carry with them probably 
> the majority of users on Linux. 
>
> Setting what version of Sage will be in Debian, prior to the freeze, 
> is not such a big deal in its own right as not many packages depend on 
> Sage.  However, it does impact what versions of Sage's many 
> dependencies can be included, and GAP perhaps has the largest impact 
> there, as there are also many packages that depend on GAP (mostly GAP 
> packages). 
>
> The biggest sticking point right now to packaging Sage for Debian is 
> thus what version of GAP can go in Debian as well (and I don't think 
> the GAP community will be too happy about it if the GAP version gets 
> held back because of Sage; though the more likely outcome there is 
> that Sage gets held back (or excluded entirely) if it can't work with 
> the new GAP). 
>
> Thus some of us have been working hard to find a working convergence 
> between Sage and GAP 4.10.x.  That work is nearly ready [3] (pending 
> some needed patches to GAP), and given the normal rate of Sage's 
> release cycle it would be a shame to have this work excluded from Sage 
> 8.5, considering that it is the major blocker for Debian. 
>
> Therefore I propose doing a few more rounds of Sage 8.5 pre-releases 
> specifically with the focus of upgrading GAP: Completing #22626 which 
> I think will be ready-enough by tomorrow (I would prefer to wait until 
> GAP 4.10.1 is out but starting testing now would be better) and 
> sending it to the patchbots, while putting a hold on any other 
> non-critical fixes. 
>
> If for some reason that's impossible then we should quickly release a 
> Sage 8.6 that is focused primarily on GAP 4.10 compatibility. 
>
> Thanks, 
> Erik 
>
>
>
> [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/ztLmB2xWFig/kWk7LGycCQAJ 
> [2] https://release.debian.org/buster/freeze_policy.html 
> [3] https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22626 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

[Vincent Delecroix]

Le 20/12/2018 à 17:40, Vincent Delecroix a écrit :

My use case is that I have one billion of number field elements that
I want to plot. That goes through __float__ that calls
numerical_approx that goes through conversion to MPFR real field.

Considering my use case, I know how to make it faster (implement
__float__ on nf elements). Though I thought I would also make the
general real floating point conversion faster and I failed.


for Python floats see #26927 (needs review).

But I still have no clue on how to achieve what I want for MPFR
floating points (#26925). Which was the object of my question on
sage-devel.

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: Changes in polynomial quotient ring are intended?

[John H Palmieri]

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 9:49:38 AM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 11:11:25 AM UTC-8, Jörg-Volker wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in version 8.4 this example doesn't work anymore as it did at least until 
>> version 8.2:
>> varl = ['x0', 'x1', 'x2', 'x3']
>> B = BooleanPolynomialRing(names = varl)
>> B.inject_variables(verbose=False)
>> P. = PolynomialRing(B)
>> Byte. = P.quotient_ring( p^4 + p + 1 )
>>
>
> Given that in 8.4 we now have
>
> sage: t^4+t+1 == 0
> False
>
> I think we have a fairly critical bug.
>

Notice by the way:

sage: (t^4 + t + 1).is_zero()
True
sage: (t^4 + t + 1).__nonzero__()
False
sage: t^4 + t + 1 != 0
True

So something is working, but clearly not everything.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: Changes in polynomial quotient ring are intended?

[Nils Bruin]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 11:11:25 AM UTC-8, Jörg-Volker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> in version 8.4 this example doesn't work anymore as it did at least until 
> version 8.2:
> varl = ['x0', 'x1', 'x2', 'x3']
> B = BooleanPolynomialRing(names = varl)
> B.inject_variables(verbose=False)
> P. = PolynomialRing(B)
> Byte. = P.quotient_ring( p^4 + p + 1 )
>

Given that in 8.4 we now have

sage: t^4+t+1 == 0
False

I think we have a fairly critical bug.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

[Vincent Delecroix]

My use case is that I have one billion of number field elements that
I want to plot. That goes through __float__ that calls
numerical_approx that goes through conversion to MPFR real field.

Considering my use case, I know how to make it faster (implement
__float__ on nf elements). Though I thought I would also make the
general real floating point conversion faster and I failed.

Note that it works perfectly well with RIF, CIF, RBF and CBF via
respectively the methods _real_mpfi_, _complex_mpfi_, _arb_ and
_acb_. You can see

sage: cm = get_coercion_model()
sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 - x - 1, embedding=(1+AA(5).sqrt())/2)
sage: cm.explain(K, RIF)

And compare the timings with RR conversion!! (> factor x100)

Vincent

Le 20/12/2018 à 17:33, John Cremona a écrit :

You should say that this coercion is only being proposed when nf is a *real
quadratic field*!  For a general number field F one can get
F.embeddings(RR) (or variants with RR replaced by a RealField of any
precision, for example, or CC, or...).  Why can that not be used for this
coercion?

Personally I would never want this anyway since I would always want to
specify exactly which real embedding I wanted.  What sort of use case do
you have in mind?

John

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 16:15, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com>
wrote:


Dear all,

At #26925 I failed to make a more direct coercion nf -> RR. What
we have now go through nf -> AA -> RLF -> RR and is dramatically slow.
The coercion path can be analyzed via

sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 - x - 1, embedding=(1+AA(5).sqrt())/2)
sage: cm = get_coercion_model()
sage: cm.explain(K, RR)

The real field RR declares "_mpfr_" as being a conversion method
in its constructor. However, the coercion model does prefer a
composite map with 2 intermediates rather than this direct
conversion method...

1) Would it be desirable that a direct named conversion such as _mpfr_
would be preferred than a coercion through intermediate?

2) Is there a way to tell Sage that I want this specific coercion to
go through the _mpfr_ method?

Any input appreciated.

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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

[John Cremona]

You should say that this coercion is only being proposed when nf is a *real
quadratic field*!  For a general number field F one can get
F.embeddings(RR) (or variants with RR replaced by a RealField of any
precision, for example, or CC, or...).  Why can that not be used for this
coercion?

Personally I would never want this anyway since I would always want to
specify exactly which real embedding I wanted.  What sort of use case do
you have in mind?

John

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 16:15, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> At #26925 I failed to make a more direct coercion nf -> RR. What
> we have now go through nf -> AA -> RLF -> RR and is dramatically slow.
> The coercion path can be analyzed via
>
> sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 - x - 1, embedding=(1+AA(5).sqrt())/2)
> sage: cm = get_coercion_model()
> sage: cm.explain(K, RR)
>
> The real field RR declares "_mpfr_" as being a conversion method
> in its constructor. However, the coercion model does prefer a
> composite map with 2 intermediates rather than this direct
> conversion method...
>
> 1) Would it be desirable that a direct named conversion such as _mpfr_
> would be preferred than a coercion through intermediate?
>
> 2) Is there a way to tell Sage that I want this specific coercion to
> go through the _mpfr_ method?
>
> Any input appreciated.
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

[Vincent Delecroix]

Dear all,

At #26925 I failed to make a more direct coercion nf -> RR. What
we have now go through nf -> AA -> RLF -> RR and is dramatically slow.
The coercion path can be analyzed via

sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 - x - 1, embedding=(1+AA(5).sqrt())/2)
sage: cm = get_coercion_model()
sage: cm.explain(K, RR)

The real field RR declares "_mpfr_" as being a conversion method
in its constructor. However, the coercion model does prefer a
composite map with 2 intermediates rather than this direct
conversion method...

1) Would it be desirable that a direct named conversion such as _mpfr_
would be preferred than a coercion through intermediate?

2) Is there a way to tell Sage that I want this specific coercion to
go through the _mpfr_ method?

Any input appreciated.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[Jan Groenewald]

Hi

Seeing as the freezes are coming up on the buster side,
https://release.debian.org/buster/freeze_policy.html ,
I have added two (amd64 and i386) buster buildbots.
(I mailed Volker and his ssh keys are added.)

Regards,
Jan



On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 11:17, E. Madison Bray  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:10 AM Jeroen Demeyer 
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2018-12-20 00:12, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > > How about trying to get this into 8.5? (or perhaps 8.5.1?)
> >
> > Rushing GAP 4.10 in Sage 8.5 doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
> > Ideally, it should be sufficiently tested in betas.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "rushing".  More "release candidates" can
> be made, which are effectively no different from "testing in betas".
> I agree it needs to be tested more before it can be considered truly
> "done", but either that's going to happen in additional 8.5 "release
> candidates" or 8.6 "betas".  Personally I don't care either way as
> long as it gets done quickly as possible.  But it seems like a waste
> of time to make two minor-version number releases in quick succession.
>
>
> (This is an example of why I believe there needs to be more community
> involvement and communication in planning releases at regular
> intervals instead of just "moving forward" according to some seemingly
> arbitrary plan.)
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
  .~.
  /V\ Jan Groenewald
 /( )\www.aims.ac.za
 ^^-^^

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[E. Madison Bray]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:10 AM Jeroen Demeyer  wrote:
>
> On 2018-12-20 00:12, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > How about trying to get this into 8.5? (or perhaps 8.5.1?)
>
> Rushing GAP 4.10 in Sage 8.5 doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
> Ideally, it should be sufficiently tested in betas.

Depends on what you mean by "rushing".  More "release candidates" can
be made, which are effectively no different from "testing in betas".
I agree it needs to be tested more before it can be considered truly
"done", but either that's going to happen in additional 8.5 "release
candidates" or 8.6 "betas".  Personally I don't care either way as
long as it gets done quickly as possible.  But it seems like a waste
of time to make two minor-version number releases in quick succession.


(This is an example of why I believe there needs to be more community
involvement and communication in planning releases at regular
intervals instead of just "moving forward" according to some seemingly
arbitrary plan.)

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[E. Madison Bray]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:01 AM Antonio Rojas  wrote:
>
>
>
> El martes, 18 de diciembre de 2018, 12:50:44 (UTC+1), E. Madison Bray 
> escribió:
>>
>> As pointed out by Samuel last month [1] the transition freeze (i.e.
>> new package versions) for the next major Debian release (buster) is
>> coming up January 12 [2].  This is important for Sage and those
>> working to package Sage for Debian, as it will impact what version of
>> Sage is available in Debian, and by extension big name Debian-based
>> distributions such as Ubuntu and Mint that carry with them probably
>> the majority of users on Linux.
>>
>
> Since the GAP 4.10 work is considered done, does it really make that much 
> difference whether it is in a stable Sage release or not? Can't Debian 
> packagers simply backport the patch to 8.5? (which is what I'm planning to do 
> on Arch if it doesn't make it to 8.5)

That is a possibility of course, but not ideal.  It results in
splitting the community in possibly confusing ways.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2018-12-20 00:12, Dima Pasechnik wrote:

How about trying to get this into 8.5? (or perhaps 8.5.1?)


Rushing GAP 4.10 in Sage 8.5 doesn't sound like a good idea to me. 
Ideally, it should be sufficiently tested in betas.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[Antonio Rojas]

El martes, 18 de diciembre de 2018, 12:50:44 (UTC+1), E. Madison Bray 
escribió:
>
> As pointed out by Samuel last month [1] the transition freeze (i.e. 
> new package versions) for the next major Debian release (buster) is 
> coming up January 12 [2].  This is important for Sage and those 
> working to package Sage for Debian, as it will impact what version of 
> Sage is available in Debian, and by extension big name Debian-based 
> distributions such as Ubuntu and Mint that carry with them probably 
> the majority of users on Linux. 
>
>
Since the GAP 4.10 work is considered done, does it really make that much 
difference whether it is in a stable Sage release or not? Can't Debian 
packagers simply backport the patch to 8.5? (which is what I'm planning to 
do on Arch if it doesn't make it to 8.5) 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[E. Madison Bray]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:56 AM E. Madison Bray  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:12 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:
> >
> > I`ve just given #22626 (port gap/libgap to GAP 4.10) a positive
> > review (Erik deserves a round of applause for this great work!)
> > And the associated #26856 (gap_packages/database) will be up for
> > reviewing very soon,
> > I`m just running one last round of tests; that is, it should be possible to 
> > get
> > GAP 4.10 ready on the 20.12.
>
> I'm going to have a closer look now at your gap_packages ticket today
> so we can hopefully get that finished up.
>
> > How about trying to get this into 8.5? (or perhaps 8.5.1?)
>
> 8.5 would be my preference (not "8.5.1" as this is a major change).
> But I'm also happy to release an 8.6 soon if we can do that instead.
> Volker had already mentioned a December 1st cut-off date for major
> updates to 8.5 which we weren't able to make, and that's fine.  Just
> as long as the next release comes out quickly and prioritizes the GAP
> update (and perhaps nothing else major, though if there are bug fixes
> to include that's fine too).

On the other hand it's a lot of work to make an 8.5 release, and then
follow up with an 8.6 release just a couple weeks later, so if I were
release manager I would personally be inclined to wait.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[E. Madison Bray]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:12 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:
>
> I`ve just given #22626 (port gap/libgap to GAP 4.10) a positive
> review (Erik deserves a round of applause for this great work!)
> And the associated #26856 (gap_packages/database) will be up for
> reviewing very soon,
> I`m just running one last round of tests; that is, it should be possible to 
> get
> GAP 4.10 ready on the 20.12.

I'm going to have a closer look now at your gap_packages ticket today
so we can hopefully get that finished up.

> How about trying to get this into 8.5? (or perhaps 8.5.1?)

8.5 would be my preference (not "8.5.1" as this is a major change).
But I'm also happy to release an 8.6 soon if we can do that instead.
Volker had already mentioned a December 1st cut-off date for major
updates to 8.5 which we weren't able to make, and that's fine.  Just
as long as the next release comes out quickly and prioritizes the GAP
update (and perhaps nothing else major, though if there are bug fixes
to include that's fine too).

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

[VulK]

Same here

* 'Martin R' via sage-devel  [2018-12-20 00:36:35]:


I have very little time, but if someone posts very precise compilation
instructions to upgrade from current develop, I would let my computer play
with it in the background.

(currently compiling 8.5.rc1)

In particular: was gap 4.10 already tested with optional packages like
coxeter3 and the experimental gap3 package?

Martin

Am Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2018 08:41:40 UTC+1 schrieb Emmanuel
Charpentier:


Well...

Gap 4.10 and associated packages are a large change. I can't see it going
straight from positive_review to release. Including it would entail at
least a 8.5.rc2, and a decent shakedown period. This argues strongly in
favor of Volker's suggestion of releasing 8.5 "as is" from 8.5.rc1.

But let's look at an alternative, aiming at advancing Debian's Sage and
supporting software as far as possible :

Le jeudi 20 décembre 2018 00:12:42 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :


I`ve just given #22626 (port gap/libgap to GAP 4.10) a positive
review (Erik deserves a round of applause for this great work!)
And the associated #26856 (gap_packages/database) will be up for
reviewing very soon,
I`m just running one last round of tests; that is, it should be possible
to get
GAP 4.10 ready on the 20.12.



Nice ! That would allow 8.5.rc2 about Dec, 22 and, if all goes well and
Volker _ajuvante_, 8.5 release on Dec 29.

What about Debian packaging ? Postulating 8.5 release on Dec 29, cant Sage
be packaged and uploaded to unstable before Jan. 12 ?



How about trying to get this into 8.5? (or perhaps 8.5.1?)



Call that 8.6 rather than 8.5.1 (better marketing...). But 8.5 would be
even better...



Dima

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 8:34 PM Volker Braun  wrote:
>
> I'm inclined to release 8.5 this weekend...
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

['Martin R' via sage-devel]

I have very little time, but if someone posts very precise compilation 
instructions to upgrade from current develop, I would let my computer play 
with it in the background.

(currently compiling 8.5.rc1)

In particular: was gap 4.10 already tested with optional packages like 
coxeter3 and the experimental gap3 package?

Martin

Am Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2018 08:41:40 UTC+1 schrieb Emmanuel 
Charpentier:
>
> Well...
>
> Gap 4.10 and associated packages are a large change. I can't see it going 
> straight from positive_review to release. Including it would entail at 
> least a 8.5.rc2, and a decent shakedown period. This argues strongly in 
> favor of Volker's suggestion of releasing 8.5 "as is" from 8.5.rc1.
>
> But let's look at an alternative, aiming at advancing Debian's Sage and 
> supporting software as far as possible :
>
> Le jeudi 20 décembre 2018 00:12:42 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
>>
>> I`ve just given #22626 (port gap/libgap to GAP 4.10) a positive 
>> review (Erik deserves a round of applause for this great work!) 
>> And the associated #26856 (gap_packages/database) will be up for 
>> reviewing very soon, 
>> I`m just running one last round of tests; that is, it should be possible 
>> to get 
>> GAP 4.10 ready on the 20.12. 
>>
>
> Nice ! That would allow 8.5.rc2 about Dec, 22 and, if all goes well and 
> Volker _ajuvante_, 8.5 release on Dec 29.
>
> What about Debian packaging ? Postulating 8.5 release on Dec 29, cant Sage 
> be packaged and uploaded to unstable before Jan. 12 ?
>
>>
>> How about trying to get this into 8.5? (or perhaps 8.5.1?) 
>>
>
> Call that 8.6 rather than 8.5.1 (better marketing...). But 8.5 would be 
> even better...
>
>>
>> Dima 
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 8:34 PM Volker Braun  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > I'm inclined to release 8.5 this weekend... 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.