[sage-support] Re: assume(...) is very slow
I'm probably not the right one to respond to this one, but please, do!
I get reminded of this every time I run through any of my worksheets,
but then I usually get distracted by the results before I get to send
out an email about it. Thanks for picking it up again!
Stan
On Nov 20, 6:46 am, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:47 am, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This could be greatly sped up by changing
maxima.assume('...')
to
maxima.eval(assume(..))
in the calculus code...
sage: timeit(maxima.eval('assume(x0)'))
5 loops, best of 3: 53.2 ms per loop
sage: timeit(maxima.assume(x0))
5 loops, best of 3: 122 ms per loop
I don't have time to do this...
This was never made into a ticket. Should it?
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: latex output for real numbers without zeros at the end
Thanks a lot for that, Robert! Is the ultimate fix the one that will
use pynac instead of maxima? I can't wait for this one.
All the best,
Stan
On Nov 19, 6:46 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
Hi Robert,
Will the fix of the interaction with Maxima allow conservation of
precision of arguments passed through Maxima? This would satisfy my
needs.
Actually, the fix is avoiding Maxima for everything symbolic.
Depending on how long this is going to take, I would like Mike's
interim fix to be implemented. It doesn't make anything worse compared
with the current state, as currently latexification gives a false
sense
of precision, anyway. This does certainly not fit my definition of
usefulness. We would just have to make sure that the interim fix is
removed again when the maxima interaction is fixed.
The problem with Mike's fix is that it affects *all* real numbers,
not just ones in Maxima expressions. I would be OK with a fix that
just impacts symbolic object's latex (and even string)
representation. I'll implement this and see if it gets a positive
review.
- Robert
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
Ah, I see:
dummy1 = RealField(8)(0.1);dummy1
0.10
dummy2 = RealField(16)(0.1);dummy2
0.1000
latex(x*dummy1)
{0.1001 x}
latex(x*dummy2)
{0.1 x}
This is not quite what one would expect. However, the behaviour
before
the fix was not much better in my opinion, as the precision was not
obvious from the latex output, either:
sage: dummy1 = RealField(8)(0.1);dummy1
0.10
sage: dummy2 = RealField(16)(0.1);dummy2
0.1000
sage: latex(x*dummy1)
{0.1001000 x}
sage: latex(x*dummy2)
{0.100 x}
Obviously, the fix does not fix all the problems, but it does make
latex output much more useful. Would you agree?
That depends on your definition of useful. Personally, I think it's
useful to see how many digits of precision a given number has, and
for most things it works fine.
The issue here is the interaction with Maxima, which is being fixed.
Making it so any latexification of all real numbers is truncated is
(IMHO) not the right fix because one component abuses precisions.
- Robert
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: How to use tar from Sage?
Dear Michael, On Nov 19, 9:34 pm, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] dortmund.de wrote: I think it is much more important to understand what the intended use here is instead of arguing about the finer details of compression. Good point, although I think that the speed/memory issues pointed out by David are helpful to make a decision. The intended use is: - I am computing cohomology rings, and during the computation some executables are called that produce a lot(!) of data, stored in files F1,F2, - When I implemented pickling/unpickling, I first tried to save the cohomology ring (including data that are in F1,F2,...) into a single file. However, it turned out to be too slow and to consume too much memory, such that it became unfeasible in some examples. - Hence, when I save a cohomology ring now, I just provide information on how to reconstruct the ring from F1,F2,..., in particular it tells the location of F1,F2,... - Advantage: It is fast and works well, as long as you stay on a single machine. - Disadvantage: Clearly it isn't portable. Even if you move the pickle plus all F1,F2,... manually on a different machine, you couldn't reconstruct the ring, because the location of the F1,F2,... changed (- broken paths). Hence, I made an export and an import method: - export puts all data needed to reconstruct the ring into an archive file. - One may transfer the archive file to a different location. The import method unpacks it and takes care that the unpacked F1,F2,... are put correctly relative to the new location. So far, I could live without import/export. But my project eventually aims at publishing the computational results in a data base. Memory is an issue. The data base will comprise more than 2400 cohomology rings, and a GNU zipped tar file for one of the biggest examples is 65 MB. And currently I am trying to compute a ring that occupies a total of 74 GB (uncompressed) on the disk - it isn't finished yet... I would always suggest tar.gz since bz2 support for example is not build in for non-GNU tar. Does the system-tar really play a role if one can use the Python libraries for data compression? I understood that the bz2 package would do the work, even if there is no GNU tar on the system. Cheers, Simon --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: lists, vectors, arrays in equations?
Stan Schymanski wrote:
Thanks a lot for all your help! The [f(a=i,x=j,b=k) for i,j,k in zip
(v,w,z)] way looks useful, as I can easily see what is inserted for
what. Looking at the other examples, I realised that most of my time
series are likely to be imported as numpy arrays, so I will have to
look in more detail at the numpy way. Is there an easy way of
converting a function f into a numpy function?
Here is what I tried:
sage: import numpy
sage: var('a b')
sage: f = a*x^2 + b
sage: v = numpy.array([1,2,3])
sage: w = numpy.array([4,5,6])
sage: z = numpy.array([7,8,9])
sage: f(a=v,x=w,b=z)
Traceback (click to the left for traceback)
...
TypeError: 'numpy.ndarray' object is not callable
sage: a = v
sage: b = w
sage: x = z
sage: f
array([
b + 49 a,
b + 64 a,
b + 81 a], dtype=object)
sage: a*x^2 + b
array([53, 133, 249], dtype=object)
The last output is what I want, but I don't want to type the whole
equation in again. I am collecting all the methods and ideas that help
me and I hope that I will be able to put it all into a tutorial one
day.
You could use a pure python function, then. The code below does nothing
with Sage; it would run with just python (and numpy).
sage: import numpy
sage: v = numpy.array([1,2,3])
sage: w = numpy.array([4,5,6])
sage: z = numpy.array([7,8,9])
sage: def f(a,x,b):
: return a*x**2+b
:
sage: f(a=v,x=w,b=z)
array([23, 58, 117], dtype=object)
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Problem with optional trac package (sage version 3.1.4)
What operating system *exactly*? What version of Sage? How did you install trac into Sage? And anything else useful about your setup that you can think of... Redhat Fedora 8 with all current patches applied. Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.26.6-49.fc8 SAGE Version 3.1.4, Release Date: 2008-10-20 sage -i trac-20071204 I got around the problem by simply installing a separate version of trac and running it independently of sage. From what I gather using Google, the problem has to do with python. -gerhard --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: bug in integral?
Yes, integral does not handle abs correctly. sage: integral(abs(x),x) integrate(abs(x), x) sage: integral(max(x,-x),x) x^2/2 If that's for sure a bug coming from maxima, I hope someone it can be reported to their bug list. I can see that it has been reported by David to the maxima-user list, but somehow it does not show up in either the user or the bug list of maxima. Isn't that strange? On Nov 19, 9:33 am, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for reporting this. I emailed the maxima users list. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:50 AM, pong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe someone has reported this already... but looks like there is a bug in integral sage: integral(x*abs(9-x^2), x, -6, 0) 162 The integrand is negative on (-6,0) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: bug in integral?
I know Stavros M saw it and Mike cc'd Robert D, so two of the main maxima developers definitely know about it now. Thanks again. On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM, pong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, integral does not handle abs correctly. sage: integral(abs(x),x) integrate(abs(x), x) sage: integral(max(x,-x),x) x^2/2 If that's for sure a bug coming from maxima, I hope someone it can be reported to their bug list. I can see that it has been reported by David to the maxima-user list, but somehow it does not show up in either the user or the bug list of maxima. Isn't that strange? On Nov 19, 9:33 am, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for reporting this. I emailed the maxima users list. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:50 AM, pong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe someone has reported this already... but looks like there is a bug in integral sage: integral(x*abs(9-x^2), x, -6, 0) 162 The integrand is negative on (-6,0) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: calculating and plotting polynomials with 3 variables
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:21 AM, kcrisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am really newbie to Sage, but I need to both plot and declare functions like: f(x,y,z) = x*y*z and other poly's containing 3 variables. How do I do that? It sounds like you are looking for a 3-D implicit plot. Is that correct? Or perhaps a contour plot in 3-D. Unfortunately, although there are reasonable (though not perfect) 2-D versions of that in Sage, I do not believe that we have native implicit plotting or contour plotting available in Sage in 3-D. That would be really nice, but I don't even pretend to understand how the code might be improved to implement that. However, there is the optional experimental package for Surf, which I believe does plot surfaces (in an algebraic geometry context - their home page has a nice shot of the 27 lines on a cubic) and can be used with Sage. The documentation about that on the Sage site does not inspire confidence that this can effortlessly installed, unfortunately. Best, - kcrisman This is just to confirm that indeed Sage doesn't have an implementation of implicit 3d plots yet. There is a very powerful/flexible list_plot3d command -- you can pass it an arbitrary collection of points in 3d and it puts a surface through them using various interpolation options. Thus you could get some approximation to an implicit plot, by finding lots of points (x,y,z) in a 3d grid (use fast_float to make this fast) such that f(x,y,z) is tiny. That would be just a few lines of code to implement, and might be a reasonable approximation to 3d implicit plots, for some applications (??). William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: calculating and plotting polynomials with 3 variables
In case anyone is interested there is a relatively standard algorithm for constructing mesh for an isosurfaces called marching cubes. For a while that was patented so there is a marching tetrahedrons analog but I think the patent issue is expired. Its complicated in that there are lots of things to keep track up but not mathematically sophisticated. Obviously that doesn't help immediately but it would be good project at some point if someone wanted to add 3d implicit plotting. Josh On Nov 20, 9:32 am, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:21 AM, kcrisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am really newbie to Sage, but I need to both plot and declare functions like: f(x,y,z) = x*y*z and other poly's containing 3 variables. How do I do that? It sounds like you are looking for a 3-D implicit plot. Is that correct? Or perhaps a contour plot in 3-D. Unfortunately, although there are reasonable (though not perfect) 2-D versions of that in Sage, I do not believe that we have native implicit plotting or contour plotting available in Sage in 3-D. That would be really nice, but I don't even pretend to understand how the code might be improved to implement that. However, there is the optional experimental package for Surf, which I believe does plot surfaces (in an algebraic geometry context - their home page has a nice shot of the 27 lines on a cubic) and can be used with Sage. The documentation about that on the Sage site does not inspire confidence that this can effortlessly installed, unfortunately. Best, - kcrisman This is just to confirm that indeed Sage doesn't have an implementation of implicit 3d plots yet. There is a very powerful/flexible list_plot3d command -- you can pass it an arbitrary collection of points in 3d and it puts a surface through them using various interpolation options. Thus you could get some approximation to an implicit plot, by finding lots of points (x,y,z) in a 3d grid (use fast_float to make this fast) such that f(x,y,z) is tiny. That would be just a few lines of code to implement, and might be a reasonable approximation to 3d implicit plots, for some applications (??). William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: assume(...) is very slow
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:51 AM, Stan Schymanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm probably not the right one to respond to this one, but please, do!
I get reminded of this every time I run through any of my worksheets,
but then I usually get distracted by the results before I get to send
out an email about it. Thanks for picking it up again!
I've made this trac #4566:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4566
Stan
On Nov 20, 6:46 am, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:47 am, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This could be greatly sped up by changing
maxima.assume('...')
to
maxima.eval(assume(..))
in the calculus code...
sage: timeit(maxima.eval('assume(x0)'))
5 loops, best of 3: 53.2 ms per loop
sage: timeit(maxima.assume(x0))
5 loops, best of 3: 122 ms per loop
I don't have time to do this...
This was never made into a ticket. Should it?
Cheers,
Michael
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Doc tests for file-producing methods
Hi folks, assume that some function/method produces files on the disk. What should a doc test look like for such functions/methods? Is there a standard? My fear is to have doc tests that destroy user data. I'd like to know your opinion on my concerns. 1. The doc test would produce a file, even though the user didn't ask for having nonsense data written onto his/her disk. a) In what directory should the files be created? [Subdirectories of] SAGE_TMP perhaps? b) How can one avoid name conflicts with user data? E.g., in the doc test for save_session, this point is not taken care of. c) Should the doc test always end with removing the files (see doc test for save_session)? Even if the test data are written into a default location and are not nonsense but actually meaningful and reasonable to keep? d) Would an explicit removal of the files also be needed in SAGE_TMP? 2. In view of 1.: Should such functions/methods have no doc test, making an exception to the 100% doc test coverage policy? a) There is some evidence that the answer should be yes. For example, there is no doc-test for 'file' or for 'os.mkdir'. However these are not Sage but Python, and 'save_session' is a counter- example. b) In my case, 2.a) would mean to have *no* doc test *at all* in the whole package. Not good. Yours, Simon --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Doc tests for file-producing methods
On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Simon King wrote: Hi folks, assume that some function/method produces files on the disk. What should a doc test look like for such functions/methods? Is there a standard? My fear is to have doc tests that destroy user data. I'd like to know your opinion on my concerns. 1. The doc test would produce a file, even though the user didn't ask for having nonsense data written onto his/her disk. a) In what directory should the files be created? [Subdirectories of] SAGE_TMP perhaps? Yes. b) How can one avoid name conflicts with user data? E.g., in the doc test for save_session, this point is not taken care of. See http://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/lib/module-tempfile.html c) Should the doc test always end with removing the files (see doc test for save_session)? Even if the test data are written into a default location and are not nonsense but actually meaningful and reasonable to keep? That depends on what exactly they are, but usually they should. d) Would an explicit removal of the files also be needed in SAGE_TMP? I'm not sure exactly how SAGE_TMP is cleaned up (except not as well as I would like). 2. In view of 1.: Should such functions/methods have no doc test, making an exception to the 100% doc test coverage policy? a) There is some evidence that the answer should be yes. For example, there is no doc-test for 'file' or for 'os.mkdir'. However these are not Sage but Python, and 'save_session' is a counter- example. b) In my case, 2.a) would mean to have *no* doc test *at all* in the whole package. Not good. There should absolutely be doctests. - Robert --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Doc tests for file-producing methods
Dear Robert, On Nov 20, 8:45 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) In what directory should the files be created? [Subdirectories of] SAGE_TMP perhaps? Yes. b) How can one avoid name conflicts with user data? E.g., in the doc test for save_session, this point is not taken care of. Seehttp://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/lib/module-tempfile.html Cool, I think I will use it! But shouldn't the doc test of save_session be changed, using tempfile? After all, if the user has a file 'session.sobj' in the current directory, the doc test would destroy it. As much as I see, SAGE_TMP is removed as soon as you quit Sage. However, if explicit deletion were necessary: How can one delete a non- empty directory? os.rmdir(...) would complain. Thank you! Simon --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Doc tests for file-producing methods
On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Simon King wrote: Dear Robert, On Nov 20, 8:45 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) In what directory should the files be created? [Subdirectories of] SAGE_TMP perhaps? Yes. b) How can one avoid name conflicts with user data? E.g., in the doc test for save_session, this point is not taken care of. Seehttp://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/lib/module-tempfile.html Cool, I think I will use it! But shouldn't the doc test of save_session be changed, using tempfile? After all, if the user has a file 'session.sobj' in the current directory, the doc test would destroy it. Yes, this should be changed. As much as I see, SAGE_TMP is removed as soon as you quit Sage. However, if explicit deletion were necessary: How can one delete a non- empty directory? os.rmdir(...) would complain. See http://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/lib/module-shutil.html - Robert --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Doc tests for file-producing methods
Hello, On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Simon King wrote: Dear Robert, On Nov 20, 8:45 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) In what directory should the files be created? [Subdirectories of] SAGE_TMP perhaps? Yes. b) How can one avoid name conflicts with user data? E.g., in the doc test for save_session, this point is not taken care of. Seehttp://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/lib/module-tempfile.html Cool, I think I will use it! There is also tmp_filename and tmp_dir in sage.misc.misc. --Mike --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Doc tests for file-producing methods
Dear Robert, On Nov 20, 9:10 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Simon King wrote: But shouldn't the doc test of save_session be changed, using tempfile? After all, if the user has a file 'session.sobj' in the current directory, the doc test would destroy it. Yes, this should be changed. Ok, I made a ticket #4568 (almost an arithmetic progression :) Where is save_session defined? Yours, Simon --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] How add new Sage notebook accounts? AND How kill notebook background process?
How add new Sage notebook accounts so everyone doesn't have to log in as admin? And, how kill Sage notebook? I run it as a background process and it seems to start a ton of processes. Perhaps there is a parent process I can kill that will automatically cause rest to die? Thanks, Chris --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Doc tests for file-producing methods
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Simon King wrote: Hi folks, assume that some function/method produces files on the disk. What should a doc test look like for such functions/methods? Is there a standard? My fear is to have doc tests that destroy user data. I'd like to know your opinion on my concerns. 1. The doc test would produce a file, even though the user didn't ask for having nonsense data written onto his/her disk. a) In what directory should the files be created? [Subdirectories of] SAGE_TMP perhaps? Yes. b) How can one avoid name conflicts with user data? E.g., in the doc test for save_session, this point is not taken care of. See http://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/lib/module-tempfile.html It might be better I think to use the Sage-provided functions tmp_filename() and tmp_dir(): sage: tmp_filename() '/Users/was/.sage//temp/bsd.local/88943//tmp_0' sage: tmp_dir() '/Users/was/.sage/temp/bsd.local/88943/dir_0' These create either a valid tempory filename or temporary directory in the appropriate subdirectory of DOT_SAGE. This will definitely eventually be cleaned up by the sage-cleaner script, even if you kill -9 the sage process. c) Should the doc test always end with removing the files (see doc test for save_session)? Even if the test data are written into a default location and are not nonsense but actually meaningful and reasonable to keep? That depends on what exactly they are, but usually they should. d) Would an explicit removal of the files also be needed in SAGE_TMP? I'm not sure exactly how SAGE_TMP is cleaned up (except not as well as I would like). 2. In view of 1.: Should such functions/methods have no doc test, making an exception to the 100% doc test coverage policy? a) There is some evidence that the answer should be yes. For example, there is no doc-test for 'file' or for 'os.mkdir'. However these are not Sage but Python, and 'save_session' is a counter- example. b) In my case, 2.a) would mean to have *no* doc test *at all* in the whole package. Not good. There should absolutely be doctests. - Robert -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: How add new Sage notebook accounts? AND How kill notebook background process?
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How add new Sage notebook accounts so everyone doesn't have to log in as admin? Type notebook? and read the docs. If that isn't enough please please do ask here again. And, how kill Sage notebook? I run it as a background process and it seems to start a ton of processes. Perhaps there is a parent process I can kill that will automatically cause rest to die? Do you know about the screen program? Try typing man screen to see if you have it. It is an *awesome* way to run programs like the notebook, detach them, come back to them later ,etc., and be able to control-c to quit them properly. If it isn't installed on your server, let me know and I'll point you to a page where you can download and install it. William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: latex output for real numbers without zeros at the end
On Nov 20, 2008, at 1:54 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
Thanks a lot for that, Robert!
See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4572 Do you want to
review it?
Is the ultimate fix the one that will
use pynac instead of maxima? I can't wait for this one.
Yep, though we won't be replacing all of maxima's functionality any
time soon.
All the best,
Stan
On Nov 19, 6:46 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
Hi Robert,
Will the fix of the interaction with Maxima allow conservation of
precision of arguments passed through Maxima? This would satisfy my
needs.
Actually, the fix is avoiding Maxima for everything symbolic.
Depending on how long this is going to take, I would like Mike's
interim fix to be implemented. It doesn't make anything worse
compared
with the current state, as currently latexification gives a false
sense
of precision, anyway. This does certainly not fit my definition of
usefulness. We would just have to make sure that the interim fix is
removed again when the maxima interaction is fixed.
The problem with Mike's fix is that it affects *all* real numbers,
not just ones in Maxima expressions. I would be OK with a fix that
just impacts symbolic object's latex (and even string)
representation. I'll implement this and see if it gets a positive
review.
- Robert
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Stan Schymanski wrote:
Ah, I see:
dummy1 = RealField(8)(0.1);dummy1
0.10
dummy2 = RealField(16)(0.1);dummy2
0.1000
latex(x*dummy1)
{0.1001 x}
latex(x*dummy2)
{0.1 x}
This is not quite what one would expect. However, the behaviour
before
the fix was not much better in my opinion, as the precision was
not
obvious from the latex output, either:
sage: dummy1 = RealField(8)(0.1);dummy1
0.10
sage: dummy2 = RealField(16)(0.1);dummy2
0.1000
sage: latex(x*dummy1)
{0.1001000 x}
sage: latex(x*dummy2)
{0.100 x}
Obviously, the fix does not fix all the problems, but it does make
latex output much more useful. Would you agree?
That depends on your definition of useful. Personally, I think it's
useful to see how many digits of precision a given number has, and
for most things it works fine.
The issue here is the interaction with Maxima, which is being
fixed.
Making it so any latexification of all real numbers is truncated is
(IMHO) not the right fix because one component abuses precisions.
- Robert
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] How to exponentiate a matrix with mixed entries?
Hi all, I'm trying to exponentiate a matrix with a complex entry. The input and output is below. Why does Sage give me 103993*I/33102 in the upper right hand corner, and how can I get it to give me the right answer? Also, how do I get it to use (eg.) RealField(100)? Best, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ sage -- | SAGE Version 3.1.2, Release Date: 2008-09-19 | | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.| -- sage: A=Matrix([[1,0,i*float(pi)],[0,1,0],[0,0,1]]) sage: exp(A)/exp(1) [ 1 0 103993*I/33102] [ 0 1 0] [ 0 0 1] sage: B=Matrix([[1,0,i*pi],[0,1,0],[0,0,1]]) sage: exp(B)/exp(1) [ 10 I*pi] [ 010] [ 001] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Mathematica (under wine) sage interface
I am currently running Mathematica through wine on Ubuntu.
From the command line:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ wine C:\Program Files\Wolfram Research\Mathematica
\6.0\math.exe
Mathematica 6.0 for Microsoft Windows (32-bit)
Copyright 1988-2008 Wolfram Research, Inc.
In[1]:=
And in /usr/bin/math
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /usr/bin/math
#/bin/bash
wine C:\Program Files\Wolfram Research\Mathematica\6.0\math.exe
However, I get this in sage:
sage: mathematica('1+1')
Timeout exceeded in read_nonblocking().
pexpect.spawn instance at 0xae5988c
version: 2.0 ($Revision: 1.151 $)
command: /usr/bin/math
args: ['/usr/bin/math']
patterns:
In[[0-9]+]:=
buffer (last 100 chars):
before (last 100 chars): mand, self.args)
425
426 # Parent
OSError: [Errno 8] Exec format error
sage:
after: class 'pexpect.TIMEOUT'
match: None
match_index: None
exitstatus: None
flag_eof: 0
pid: 3157
child_fd: 3
timeout: 30
delimiter: class 'pexpect.EOF'
logfile: None
maxread: 100
searchwindowsize: None
delaybeforesend: 0
---
TypeError Traceback (most recent call
last)
/home/qj/ipython console in module()
/home/qj/sage/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/interfaces/
expect.pyc in __call__(self, x, name)
963 return x
964 if isinstance(x, basestring):
-- 965 return cls(self, x, name=name)
966 try:
967 return self._coerce_from_special_method(x)
/home/qj/sage/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/interfaces/
expect.pyc in __init__(self, parent, value, is_name, name)
1281 except (TypeError, KeyboardInterrupt,
RuntimeError, ValueError), x:
1282 self._session_number = -1
- 1283 raise TypeError, x
1284 self._session_number = parent._session_number
1285
TypeError: Unable to start mathematica
What should I do to get the Mathematica interface to work?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: How add new Sage notebook accounts? AND How kill notebook background process?
On Nov 20, 1:05 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Type notebook? and read the docs. If that isn't enough please please do ask here again. The Help link inside the notebook gives a ton of great docs on how to do great things with notebook. I couldn't find the section on how to add new notebook accounts in those docs. Should I be looking somewhere else? And, how kill Sage notebook? I run it as a background process and it seems to start a ton of processes. Perhaps there is a parent process I can kill that will automatically cause rest to die? Do you know about the screen program? Try typing man screen to see if you have it. It is an *awesome* way to run programs like the notebook, detach them, come back to them later ,etc., and be able to control-c to quit them properly. If it isn't installed on your server, let me know and I'll point you to a page where you can download and install it. I've used screen to run programs. I never thought to use it to exit programs cleanly. I was trying to make a /etc/init.d/sage script to start and stop Sage. I guess my /etc/init.d/sage could start screen. I hadn't thought of that. I'll look into it. Thanks! Chris --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Possible to change base notebook URL? e.g. localhost:8000/foo/bar ?
Possible to change base notebook URL? e.g. localhost:8000/foo/bar ? cs --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Possible to change base notebook URL? e.g. localhost:8000/foo/bar ?
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Possible to change base notebook URL? e.g. localhost:8000/foo/bar ? Unfortunately, this isn't supported yet, though it's certainly been requested before. William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: How add new Sage notebook accounts? AND How kill notebook background process?
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 20, 1:05 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Type notebook? and read the docs. If that isn't enough please please do ask here again. The Help link inside the notebook gives a ton of great docs on how to do great things with notebook. I couldn't find the section on how to add new notebook accounts in those docs. Should I be looking somewhere else? It should be in chapter 3 on the notebook. Unfortunately, I just looked and it isn't.The problem is that the file notebook_object.py isn't included in the reference manual. Maybe Mike Hansen can fix this when he Sphinxifies the documentation for Sage, which he'll do very soon. I've created trac ticket #4574 about this: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4574 And, how kill Sage notebook? I run it as a background process and it seems to start a ton of processes. Perhaps there is a parent process I can kill that will automatically cause rest to die? Do you know about the screen program? Try typing man screen to see if you have it. It is an *awesome* way to run programs like the notebook, detach them, come back to them later ,etc., and be able to control-c to quit them properly. If it isn't installed on your server, let me know and I'll point you to a page where you can download and install it. I've used screen to run programs. I never thought to use it to exit programs cleanly. I was trying to make a /etc/init.d/sage script to start and stop Sage. I guess my /etc/init.d/sage could start screen. I hadn't thought of that. I'll look into it. Thanks! I don't know if that is possible -- let me know. It would be interesting. William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Possible to change base notebook URL? e.g. localhost:8000/foo/bar ?
William Stein wrote: On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Possible to change base notebook URL? e.g. localhost:8000/foo/bar ? Unfortunately, this isn't supported yet, though it's certainly been requested before. Indeed, see http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/feb0b87bdfb026a3/2ff47b95d10e6c7e?lnk=gstq=%3Cbase+href#2ff47b95d10e6c7e I thought that this was going to be a part of the templating of the notebook. For whoever is doing that, how is it going? Would it be easy to add the base href=something tag at the top? Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: Possible to change base notebook URL? e.g. localhost:8000/foo/bar ?
I thought that this was going to be a part of the templating of the notebook. For whoever is doing that, how is it going? Would it be easy to add the base href=something tag at the top? It will be easy to do that. Mike said he would review the notebook tickets over the weekend. With templating I'm finding that it's easy to introduce a lot of bugs, so it is going slowly. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-support] Re: How add new Sage notebook accounts? AND How kill notebook background process?
On Nov 20, 8:23 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if that is possible -- let me know. It would be interesting.
Actually I found a better way to write an init.d script. It appears
that killing twistd shuts down the whole show.
Adding here on hopes useful to someone...
Working /etc/init.d/sage script.
(Replace seb with your non-root user account and SAGE_DIR as desired.)
#!/usr/bin/env python
import sys
import os
SAGE_DIR = /usr/local/sage-3.1.2-ubuntu32bit-i686-intel-i686-Linux
TWISTD = SAGE_DIR + /local/bin/twistd
def start():
os.system(su seb -c 'sage -notebook ')
def stop():
os.system('kill `ps -ef | grep ' + TWISTD + ' | cut -b 10-14`
\
1 /dev/null 2 /dev/null ; sleep 4')
if sys.argv[1] == start:
start()
if sys.argv[1] == stop:
stop()
if sys.argv[1] == restart:
stop()
start()
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
