[sage-support] Re: Quitting sage
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the option to use Maple/Mathematica, I think as long as there is relatively good conversion of expressions, it's best to just let the user call the Maple/Mathematica command directly. Otherwise, you need to write code to detect if one is installed and call it with a fallback plan if they're not. I don't envision any autodetection or anything like that. What I envision is that the integrate command has an option algorithm='maple', say, that does the integral transparently using maple, e.g., sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x) (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='maple') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='mathematica') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='sympy') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='axiom') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 - 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 23, 2008, at 3:39 AM, William Stein wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the option to use Maple/Mathematica, I think as long as there is relatively good conversion of expressions, it's best to just let the user call the Maple/Mathematica command directly. Otherwise, you need to write code to detect if one is installed and call it with a fallback plan if they're not. I don't envision any autodetection or anything like that. What I envision is that the integrate command has an option algorithm='maple', say, that does the integral transparently using maple, e.g., sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x) (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='maple') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='mathematica') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='sympy') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='axiom') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 Ah, I like that option. To be honest, I haven't even really tried Maple from Sage yet. To be honest, one of the reasons I want to switch to Sage for is the LaTeX export. Maple's is awful and talking to the developers, they have no interest in improving it. I've been contemplating the possibility of exporting the notebook to LaTeX, but that requires that I get more familiar with the notebook code. The code in, http://www.iwriteiam.nl/html2tex.html may be useful as a starting point. It's GPL so that's good. Cheers, Tim. --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 23, 2008, at 3:39 AM, William Stein wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the option to use Maple/Mathematica, I think as long as there is relatively good conversion of expressions, it's best to just let the user call the Maple/Mathematica command directly. Otherwise, you need to write code to detect if one is installed and call it with a fallback plan if they're not. I don't envision any autodetection or anything like that. What I envision is that the integrate command has an option algorithm='maple', say, that does the integral transparently using maple, e.g., sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x) (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='maple') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='mathematica') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='sympy') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 sage: integrate(sin(x)*cos(x)*x, algorithm='axiom') (sin(2*x) - 2*x*cos(2*x))/8 Ah, I like that option. To be honest, I haven't even really tried Maple from Sage yet. To be honest, one of the reasons I want to switch to Sage for is the LaTeX export. Maple's is awful and talking to the developers, they have no interest in improving it. I've been contemplating the possibility of exporting the notebook to LaTeX, but that requires that I get more familiar with the notebook code. That has been on my todo list forever, repeatedly. I gave it also as a student project once, but the student turned out to not know programming. The code in, http://www.iwriteiam.nl/html2tex.html may be useful as a starting point. It's GPL so that's good. Cheers, Tim. --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo -- 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 23, 8:34 am, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I would like to see happen soon is some of the basic cases solved in our own code, and then passing off to some other library for the harder cases. here is a blogposting about some of the difficulties: http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/01/19/mathematica-and-the-fundamental-theorem-of-calculus/ i.e. it implies that even the test suite has to be intelligent, because different answers could be the same and ok or otoh the same answer could be a problem at some points, when calculating the definite value h --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Axiom? Axiom does *elementary* integration. That is, if the Risch algorithm applies, it will find the result except in a few cases. It does have some pattern matching abilities, but these are not really worth mentioning. FriCAS (axiom fork, which is the one used for Sage) fixes quite a few bugs in the old axiom integrator. We (FriCASers) are lucky to have Waldek as maintainer, who knows integration fairly well. I'd like to add that I'm working on a domain (in the FriCAS sense) that implements power series that satisfy an ADE, and these are closed under integration, too. Of course, in most cases, the result will be an ADE, not an elementary function. Below is a rudimentary example on foot. By the way, I think that axiom.someop should become fricas.someop in SAGE. axiom is (meanwhile) quite misleading, FriCAS and axiom have parted. Martin Below, how to integrate sum n^n/factorial n z^n on foot: (1) - series([n^n/factorial n for n in 0..])$UTS(FRAC INT, x, 0) (1) 2 9 3 32 4 625 5 324 6 117649 7 131072 8 1 + x + 2x + - x + -- x + --- x + --- x + -- x + -- x 2 3 24 5 720 315 + 4782969 9 1562500 10 11 --- x + --- x + O(x ) 4480 567 Type: UnivariateTaylorSeries(Fraction(Integer),x,0) (2) - l := [1,1,2,9/2,32/3,625/24,324/5]; Type: List(Fraction(Integer)) (3) - guessADE l (3) n , 3 2 [[function= [[x ]f(x): - xf (x) + f(x) - f(x) = 0,f(0)= 1(0)!],order= 0]] Type: List(Record(function: Expression(Integer),order: NonNegativeInteger)) (4) - integrate series([n^n/factorial n for n in 0..])$UTS(FRAC INT, x, 0) (4) 1 2 2 3 9 4 32 5 625 6 324 7 117649 8 131072 9 x + - x + - x + - x + -- x + --- x + --- x + -- x + -- x 2 3 8 15 144 35 57602835 + 4782969 10 11 --- x + O(x ) 44800 Type: UnivariateTaylorSeries(Fraction(Integer),x,0) (5) - guessADE entries complete first(coefficients %, 10) (5) [ n, [function= [[x ]f(x): (- f(x) - x + 1)f (x) + f(x) - 1= 0,f(0)= 0(0)!], order= 0] ] Type: List(Record(function: Expression(Integer),order: NonNegativeInteger)) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
Martin Rubey wrote: By the way, I think that axiom.someop should become fricas.someop in SAGE. axiom is (meanwhile) quite misleading, FriCAS and axiom have parted. Could the people involved in Sage/Fricas/Axiom vote on this? If they vote for the change, somebody can post a patch on the sage trac, and it'll get accepted. I'm thinking of you, Waldek, Bill Page, etc. and say if the majority vote for this switch then we do it. I'm generally for it, since the Sage interface is being developed with FriCAS (rather than Axiom) as the standard test interface. 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: [fricas-devel] Re: [sage-support] Re: Quitting sage
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | Martin Rubey wrote:
| | By the way, I think that axiom.someop should become fricas.someop
in SAGE.
| | axiom is (meanwhile) quite misleading, FriCAS and axiom have parted.
| |
| | Could the people involved in Sage/Fricas/Axiom vote on this? If they
vote for
| | the change, somebody can post a patch on the sage trac, and it'll get
accepted.
| | I'm thinking of you, Waldek, Bill Page, etc. and say if the majority
| | vote for this
| | switch then we do it. I'm generally for it, since the Sage interface
is being
| | developed with FriCAS (rather than Axiom) as the standard test
interface.
|
| Just as three projects have agreed to using distinct driver names, it
| would make sense for Sage to use distinct interface names too.
|
| -- Gaby
|
|
| Are you suggesting that sage have three separate interfaces:
|
| sage: axiom.eval('2+2')
| 4
| sage: open_axiom.eval('2+2')
| 4
| sage: fricas.eval('2+2')
|
| William
I'm suggesting that since the three software can coexist on a single
filesystem and as standalone binaries, it makes the most sense that
Sage's interface does also make room for them to coexist in a Sage
session as you show above -- would a user elect to install Sage
optional packages for all three. [ This, of course, does not mean
that the Sage people have to implement all three. ]
Thanks for the clarification. Let me re-ask my question.
Would you like to change so that the default PanAxiom interface
in Sage, which is currently called axiom be instead called fricas,
since it is currently being developed by Fricas developers, and
may end up using special features of Fricas?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
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: Quitting sage
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Madden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry for the simple question, but I don't know if I am quitting sage properly or even if it matters. I am new to open source and have little experience using Terminal. I am using OS X 10.5.5 and Safari 3.2. If I start Sage as suggested in the tutorial and then type quit as suggested on page 47 (print copy from amazon) everything goes according to the book. However, if I open up a notebook in Safari then how do I quit everything? I tried typing quit into Terminal and nothing seems to happen. If you've started up the notebook server by typing sage: notebook() in the terminal, press control-c once to exit from it. Then at the sage prompt, type sage: quit to exist sage. At this point you can quit Terminal by hitting Command-Q or clicking the close-window red dot. Similarly, for typing it directly into the notebook. Do I just quit Safari and Terminal in the usual manner, Command-Q? Yes, but it is best to *first* press control-c in the terminal, wait for the notebook server to shut down, then exit it with command-Q. When I quit Terminal this way it tells me it will terminate certain processes (bash, python ...) and I don't know if this is bad. I hope it will not be intolerable to have a complete novice posting some questions. I do have some experience with Maple and Mma, but up until now everything has been plug and play. Thomas -- 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: Quitting sage
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Madden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry for the simple question, but I don't know if I am quitting sage properly or even if it matters. I am new to open source and have little experience using Terminal. I am using OS X 10.5.5 and Safari 3.2. If I start Sage as suggested in the tutorial and then type quit as suggested on page 47 (print copy from amazon) everything goes according to the book. However, if I open up a notebook in Safari then how do I quit everything? Is it correct to say you started the notebook in Safari by typing notebook() in the terminal? If so, you just hit ctl-c in the terminal. This kills the notebook connection. You can now close Safari. Then ctl-d to quit sage. You can now close the terminal. I tried typing quit into Terminal and nothing seems to happen. Similarly, for typing it directly into the notebook. Do I just quit Safari and Terminal in the usual manner, Command-Q? When I quit Terminal this way it tells me it will terminate certain processes (bash, python ...) and I don't know if this is bad. I hope it will not be intolerable to have a complete novice posting some questions. I do have some experience with Maple and Mma, but up until now everything has been plug and play. No problem! Thomas --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 22, 5:59 pm, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Madden [snip] William and David, Thanks very much for the quick responses. I have been keeping an eye on Sage for about a year or so now but was unable to use it due to hardware and OS constraints. With a recent upgrade I am finally getting a chance to get started and I am really looking forward to using it. Thanks for your efforts with this project. I hope that in time I will learn enough to make some sort of contribution. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Thomas Madden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 22, 5:59 pm, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Madden [snip] William and David, Thanks very much for the quick responses. I have been keeping an eye on Sage for about a year or so now but was unable to use it due to hardware and OS constraints. With a recent upgrade I am finally getting a chance to get started and I am really looking forward to using it. Thanks for your efforts with this project. I hope that in time I will learn enough to make some sort of contribution. Thanks. I hope you don't quit Sage. [That was a pun based on the subject of this thread.] -- 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 22, 8:14 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Thomas Madden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 22, 5:59 pm, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Madden [snip] William and David, Thanks very much for the quick responses. I have been keeping an eye on Sage for about a year or so now but was unable to use it due to hardware and OS constraints. With a recent upgrade I am finally getting a chance to get started and I am really looking forward to using it. Out of curiosity: What were the constraints? Thanks for your efforts with this project. I hope that in time I will learn enough to make some sort of contribution. Thanks. I hope you don't quit Sage. [That was a pun based on the subject of this thread.] If you explain the pun you shouldn't have made it in the first place :) -- William 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 22, 8:16 pm, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] dortmund.de wrote: On Nov 22, 8:14 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Thomas Madden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 22, 5:59 pm, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Madden [snip] William and David, Thanks very much for the quick responses. I have been keeping an eye on Sage for about a year or so now but was unable to use it due to hardware and OS constraints. With a recent upgrade I am finally getting a chance to get started and I am really looking forward to using it. Out of curiosity: What were the constraints? Thanks for your efforts with this project. I hope that in time I will learn enough to make some sort of contribution. Thanks. I hope you don't quit Sage. [That was a pun based on the subject of this thread.] I will have to if I ever want to get any sleep again. But only temporarily because I am having too much fun with it! Michael, I think I became aware of Sage about two years ago. At that time I was using Maple and was content but the idea behind Sage really interested me so I would periodically check up on it. Almost a year ago I noticed that my %CPU use was maxing out when I was working in a Maple doc. I was using a Power Book G4 and running OS X 10.3.9. I posted this at mapleprimes and contacted support. The reply was that they could not reproduce the behavior and that they would be dropping support for that version of OS X since it was getting old. (other users confirmed the behavior at mapleprimes) Ironically, I had avoided upgrading to 10.4 because so many of the Maple users were posting problems with it when it first came out. By the time I noticed that most of the complaints seemed to have dwindled news was already out about 10.5 so I figured I would just wait for that version. Unfortunately, when it did come out my system did not meet the minimum requirements. I started to look at Sage as an alternative but I only found a download for 10.4. I was planning to upgrade at that point and did not want invest in 10.4 so I decided to wait. Somehow it turned into almost an entire year. I just upgraded to a new MacBook Pro and Sage is one of the first things I have installed. Thomas --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 23, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Thomas Madden wrote: I will have to if I ever want to get any sleep again. But only temporarily because I am having too much fun with it! Michael, I think I became aware of Sage about two years ago. At that time I was using Maple and was content but the idea behind Sage really interested me so I would periodically check up on it. Almost a year ago I noticed that my %CPU use was maxing out when I was working in a Maple doc. I was using a Power Book G4 and running OS X 10.3.9. I posted this at mapleprimes and contacted support. The reply was that they could not reproduce the behavior and that they would be dropping support for that version of OS X since it was getting old. (other users confirmed the behavior at mapleprimes) Interesting, since I have a G4 Mac Mini running Maple 11 without much difficulty. I've also been using it on an Intel Core Duo Mac Mini and my Core 2 Duo MacBook. Ironically, I had avoided upgrading to 10.4 because so many of the Maple users were posting problems with it when it first came out. By the time I noticed that most of the complaints seemed to have dwindled news was already out about 10.5 so I figured I would just wait for that version. Unfortunately, when it did come out my system did not meet the minimum requirements. I started to look at Sage as an alternative but I only found a download for 10.4. I was planning to upgrade at that point and did not want invest in 10.4 so I decided to wait. Somehow it turned into almost an entire year. I just upgraded to a new MacBook Pro and Sage is one of the first things I have installed. As a fellow Maple user, I highly recommend that you look at the new symbolics in Sage, pynac. While support is still incomplete, it has capabilities more similar to Maple than the Maxima-based symbolics. It also tends to be much faster than the Maxima symbolics too. Cheers, Tim. --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
Thomas Madden wrote: I think I became aware of Sage about two years ago. At that time I was using Maple and was content but the idea behind Sage really interested me so I would periodically check up on it. Almost a year ago I noticed that my %CPU use was maxing out when I was working in a Maple doc. I was using a Power Book G4 and running OS X 10.3.9. I posted this at mapleprimes and contacted support. The reply was that they could not reproduce the behavior and that they would be dropping support for that version of OS X since it was getting old. (other users confirmed the behavior at mapleprimes) Ironically, I had avoided upgrading to 10.4 because so many of the Maple users were posting problems with it when it first came out. By the time I noticed that most of the complaints seemed to have dwindled news was already out about 10.5 so I figured I would just wait for that version. Unfortunately, when it did come out my system did not meet the minimum requirements. I started to look at Sage as an alternative but I only found a download for 10.4. I was planning to upgrade at that point and did not want invest in 10.4 so I decided to wait. Somehow it turned into almost an entire year. I just upgraded to a new MacBook Pro and Sage is one of the first things I have installed. A while ago, I was running Sage on a ibook G4 with 10.3.x (but then upgraded to 10.4 when it came out). I don't remember any problems with Sage (other than long compilation times). However, I think you'll be much happier with your current setup :). 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 22, 9:50 pm, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thomas Madden wrote: Hi, I think I became aware of Sage about two years ago. At that time I was using Maple and was content but the idea behind Sage really interested me so I would periodically check up on it. Almost a year ago I noticed that my %CPU use was maxing out when I was working in a Maple doc. I was using a Power Book G4 and running OS X 10.3.9. I posted this at mapleprimes and contacted support. The reply was that they could not reproduce the behavior and that they would be dropping support for that version of OS X since it was getting old. (other users confirmed the behavior at mapleprimes) Ironically, I had avoided upgrading to 10.4 because so many of the Maple users were posting problems with it when it first came out. By the time I noticed that most of the complaints seemed to have dwindled news was already out about 10.5 so I figured I would just wait for that version. Unfortunately, when it did come out my system did not meet the minimum requirements. I started to look at Sage as an alternative but I only found a download for 10.4. I was planning to upgrade at that point and did not want invest in 10.4 so I decided to wait. Somehow it turned into almost an entire year. I just upgraded to a new MacBook Pro and Sage is one of the first things I have installed. Cool. A while ago, I was running Sage on a ibook G4 with 10.3.x (but then upgraded to 10.4 when it came out). Out of curiosity: Which Sage release did you build in case you remember? One can get Sage to build on 10.3 with a couple patches if I remember correctly. The issues were mostly about MACOX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET, but I would also think that a sufficiently recent XCode was required. I don't remember any problems with Sage (other than long compilation times). However, I think you'll be much happier with your current setup :). Jason 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: Quitting sage
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 23, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Thomas Madden wrote:
I will have to if I ever want to get any sleep again. But only
temporarily because I am having too much fun with it!
Michael,
I think I became aware of Sage about two years ago. At that time I was
using Maple and was content but the idea behind Sage really interested
me so I would periodically check up on it. Almost a year ago I noticed
that my %CPU use was maxing out when I was working in a Maple doc. I
was using a Power Book G4 and running OS X 10.3.9. I posted this at
mapleprimes and contacted support. The reply was that they could not
reproduce the behavior and that they would be dropping support for
that version of OS X since it was getting old. (other users confirmed
the behavior at mapleprimes)
Interesting, since I have a G4 Mac Mini running Maple 11 without much
difficulty. I've also been using it on an Intel Core Duo Mac Mini and
my Core 2 Duo MacBook.
Ironically, I had avoided upgrading to 10.4 because so many of the
Maple users were posting problems with it when it first came out. By
the time I noticed that most of the complaints seemed to have
dwindled news was already out about 10.5 so I figured I would just
wait for that version. Unfortunately, when it did come out my system
did not meet the minimum requirements.
I started to look at Sage as an alternative but I only found a
download for 10.4. I was planning to upgrade at that point and did not
want invest in 10.4 so I decided to wait. Somehow it turned into
almost an entire year. I just upgraded to a new MacBook Pro and Sage
is one of the first things I have installed.
As a fellow Maple user, I highly recommend that you look at the new
symbolics in Sage, pynac. While support is still incomplete, it has
capabilities more similar to Maple than the Maxima-based symbolics.
It also tends to be much faster than the Maxima symbolics too.
I'm glad you're excited by this, since I put a lot of work into it
(with Burcin) :-). Anyway, to try it out, just pass the ns=True option
to the var command. E.g.,
sage: var('x,y',ns=True)
(x, y)
sage: expand((x+sin(y)*x)^3)
3*sin(y)*x^3 + 3*sin(y)^2*x^3 + sin(y)^3*x^3 + x^3
And this is a lot faster than the old ones:
sage: time f = expand((x+sin(y)/sqrt(x))^500)
CPU times: user 0.04 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.04 s
Wall time: 0.04 s
sage: var('x,y',ns=False) # old symbolics
(x, y)
sage: time f = expand((x+sin(y)/sqrt(x))^500)
CPU times: user 0.58 s, sys: 0.12 s, total: 0.69 s
Wall time: 1.22 s
Note that many things still are implemented with these symbolic
variables though -- it's
just that they are faster, and have a new design (e.g., pattern matching rules).
Jason Grout wrote:
A while ago, I was running Sage on a ibook G4 with 10.3.x (but then
upgraded to 10.4 when it came out). I don't remember any problems with
Sage (other than long compilation times).
I think that's not possible because I believe Sage has never worked
with OS X 10.3.x. The reason is because the GCC compiler that Apple
shipped with 10.3.x (as part of xcode) was very buggy, and they
refused for whatever reason to upgrade it to a non-buggy version. So
it's never been possible to build sage on OS X 10.3.x, and Sage
binaries built fro 10.4 won't work on 10.3.
Michael Abshoff adds:
One can get Sage to build on 10.3 with a couple patches if I
remember correctly. The issues were mostly about
MACOX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET, but I would also think that a sufficiently
recent XCode was required.
I don't think so. I think the whole problem is that there isn't such a thing
as sufficiently recent XCode for 10.3. The last XCode released for 10.3 was
many years ago...
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: Quitting sage
On Nov 22, 9:34 pm, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 23, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Thomas Madden wrote: I will have to if I ever want to get any sleep again. But only temporarily because I am having too much fun with it! Michael, I think I became aware of Sage about two years ago. At that time I was using Maple and was content but the idea behind Sage really interested me so I would periodically check up on it. Almost a year ago I noticed that my %CPU use was maxing out when I was working in a Maple doc. I was using a Power Book G4 and running OS X 10.3.9. I posted this at mapleprimes and contacted support. The reply was that they could not reproduce the behavior and that they would be dropping support for that version of OS X since it was getting old. (other users confirmed the behavior at mapleprimes) Interesting, since I have a G4 Mac Mini running Maple 11 without much difficulty. I've also been using it on an Intel Core Duo Mac Mini and my Core 2 Duo MacBook. [snip] Tim, Here is a link to the discussion http://www.mapleprimes.com/forum/cpu-use I am a teacher and I used Maple quite a bit to make tests and handouts. It seemed to only happen in document mode where I was using pretty much just text and 2D formulas with some graphs. If I opened the doc for presentation it would be fine until I did any editing. Then I could see the cpu jump up in the activity monitor and it would stay there until I clicked outside in the finder. It may have been related to something else in my system. I never figured it out. I just stopped using it for the most part. Thomas --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
William Stein wrote: Jason Grout wrote: A while ago, I was running Sage on a ibook G4 with 10.3.x (but then upgraded to 10.4 when it came out). I don't remember any problems with Sage (other than long compilation times). I think that's not possible because I believe Sage has never worked with OS X 10.3.x. The reason is because the GCC compiler that Apple shipped with 10.3.x (as part of xcode) was very buggy, and they refused for whatever reason to upgrade it to a non-buggy version. So it's never been possible to build sage on OS X 10.3.x, and Sage binaries built fro 10.4 won't work on 10.3. It was a long time ago. I trust your facts better than my memory. 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 23, 2008, at 1:15 AM, Thomas Madden wrote: Tim, Here is a link to the discussion http://www.mapleprimes.com/forum/cpu-use I am a teacher and I used Maple quite a bit to make tests and handouts. It seemed to only happen in document mode where I was using pretty much just text and 2D formulas with some graphs. If I opened the doc for presentation it would be fine until I did any editing. Then I could see the cpu jump up in the activity monitor and it would stay there until I clicked outside in the finder. It may have been related to something else in my system. I never figured it out. I just stopped using it for the most part. Oh, I don't use document mode so that might be why I didn't notice. I only used worksheet mode because I'd regularly get annoyed with the 2D input mode. For nice documents, I'd export individual results to LaTeX using my modified version of Maple's LaTeX exporter (available on my blog on the Mapleprimes site) which allowed me to customize how things got exported using regular expressions. Cheers, Tim. --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 23, 2008, at 1:01 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As a fellow Maple user, I highly recommend that you look at the new
symbolics in Sage, pynac. While support is still incomplete, it has
capabilities more similar to Maple than the Maxima-based symbolics.
It also tends to be much faster than the Maxima symbolics too.
I'm glad you're excited by this, since I put a lot of work into it
(with Burcin) :-). Anyway, to try it out, just pass the ns=True option
to the var command. E.g.,
sage: var('x,y',ns=True)
(x, y)
sage: expand((x+sin(y)*x)^3)
3*sin(y)*x^3 + 3*sin(y)^2*x^3 + sin(y)^3*x^3 + x^3
And this is a lot faster than the old ones:
sage: time f = expand((x+sin(y)/sqrt(x))^500)
CPU times: user 0.04 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.04 s
Wall time: 0.04 s
sage: var('x,y',ns=False) # old symbolics
(x, y)
sage: time f = expand((x+sin(y)/sqrt(x))^500)
CPU times: user 0.58 s, sys: 0.12 s, total: 0.69 s
Wall time: 1.22 s
Note that many things still are implemented with these symbolic
variables though -- it's
just that they are faster, and have a new design (e.g., pattern
matching rules).
I've been trying out them since you posted the pynac-0.1 spkg and
refrained
from upgrading until 3.2 since I couldn't get that package to work
with the
newer builds. I'm definitely excited about the possibility that I
might be
able to finally move over to Sage for regular use. Although, it's my
understanding that integration is still using Maxima?
Thanks,
Tim.
---
Tim Lahey
PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering
University of Waterloo
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Quitting sage
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 23, 2008, at 1:01 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As a fellow Maple user, I highly recommend that you look at the new
symbolics in Sage, pynac. While support is still incomplete, it has
capabilities more similar to Maple than the Maxima-based symbolics.
It also tends to be much faster than the Maxima symbolics too.
I'm glad you're excited by this, since I put a lot of work into it
(with Burcin) :-). Anyway, to try it out, just pass the ns=True option
to the var command. E.g.,
sage: var('x,y',ns=True)
(x, y)
sage: expand((x+sin(y)*x)^3)
3*sin(y)*x^3 + 3*sin(y)^2*x^3 + sin(y)^3*x^3 + x^3
And this is a lot faster than the old ones:
sage: time f = expand((x+sin(y)/sqrt(x))^500)
CPU times: user 0.04 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.04 s
Wall time: 0.04 s
sage: var('x,y',ns=False) # old symbolics
(x, y)
sage: time f = expand((x+sin(y)/sqrt(x))^500)
CPU times: user 0.58 s, sys: 0.12 s, total: 0.69 s
Wall time: 1.22 s
Note that many things still are implemented with these symbolic
variables though -- it's
just that they are faster, and have a new design (e.g., pattern
matching rules).
I've been trying out them since you posted the pynac-0.1 spkg and
refrained
from upgrading until 3.2 since I couldn't get that package to work
with the
newer builds. I'm definitely excited about the possibility that I
might be
able to finally move over to Sage for regular use. Although, it's my
understanding that integration is still using Maxima?
Ginac (on which Pynac is based) doesn't have any nontrivial symbolic
integration. So that's going to continue to depend on Maxima until
we:
* write our own
* switch to using sympy for integration (sympy does some integration)
* use code from giac, which does some integration
* Axiom?
I would definitely like to improve the ability of the integrate
command to use say Maple or Mathematica to optionally compute
integrals. Then people like you (in this thread) who do have Maple or
Mathematica laying around could still use it for that without having
to explicitly mess with the Sage Maple/Mathematica interfaces.
-- 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 23, 2008, at 1:41 AM, William Stein wrote: Ginac (on which Pynac is based) doesn't have any nontrivial symbolic integration. So that's going to continue to depend on Maxima until we: * write our own * switch to using sympy for integration (sympy does some integration) * use code from giac, which does some integration * Axiom? I would definitely like to improve the ability of the integrate command to use say Maple or Mathematica to optionally compute integrals. Then people like you (in this thread) who do have Maple or Mathematica laying around could still use it for that without having to explicitly mess with the Sage Maple/Mathematica interfaces. The main things that stop me are commands to manipulate expressions, especially integrals. Most of my work involves a lot of calculus and differential equations. I often apply commands directly to integrands and I like Maple's ability to break apart expressions and integrals to operate on individual terms. Based upon earlier discussions I think Burcin has plans in that direction. As for the option to use Maple/Mathematica, I think as long as there is relatively good conversion of expressions, it's best to just let the user call the Maple/Mathematica command directly. Otherwise, you need to write code to detect if one is installed and call it with a fallback plan if they're not. It's my understanding that Axiom is best in breed for integration, so it may be best to use that. Cheers, Tim. --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 22, 10:56 pm, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 23, 2008, at 1:41 AM, William Stein wrote: SNIP It's my understanding that Axiom is best in breed for integration, so it may be best to use that. It is my understand that it cannot compete with MMA or Maple there and various people have claimed that Maxima's integration code is better than the code in Axiom. I do not know if that is true. Anyway, in the next Maxima release there will be a lot of improvements to Maxima's integration code by Dieter Kaiser who seems to be working a lot in that area. In the very end I cannot see any alternative that we write our own code (since Axiom as well as Maxima can only be used via pexpect), but that is certainly a long and thorny path. Cheers, Tim. Cheers, Michael --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 22, 2008, at 11:09 PM, Tim Lahey wrote: On Nov 23, 2008, at 2:00 AM, mabshoff wrote: It is my understand that it cannot compete with MMA or Maple there and various people have claimed that Maxima's integration code is better than the code in Axiom. I do not know if that is true. Anyway, in the next Maxima release there will be a lot of improvements to Maxima's integration code by Dieter Kaiser who seems to be working a lot in that area. In the very end I cannot see any alternative that we write our own code (since Axiom as well as Maxima can only be used via pexpect), but that is certainly a long and thorny path. I know that Axiom has a fairly comprehensive test suite for integration which is certainly attractive. However, I certainly agree that writing our own code is probably the most likely course in the long run. So, that means either using and improving the sympy code or writing all new code. I think that writing new code is probably the best course since that way it fits best with pynac. Unfortunately, I know little about symbolic integration techniques. Does anybody have suggestions for references? Given that I'm at the university that developed Maple, I probably can get any relevant books/papers. I only know a tiny bit about symbolic integration, but mabshoff's statement that it will be a long path is certainly an understatement. What I would like to see happen soon is some of the basic cases solved in our own code, and then passing off to some other library for the harder cases. Sage isn't about about re-inventing the wheel, and I hope that something like SymPy will become mature enough to handle all the really complicated stuff. In any case the bottleneck of pexpect is not as important for the hard cases (though perhaps the difficulty of building dependancies like lisp is good motivation to have more native code). That being said, if someone does write a full symbolic integration suite natively in Sage, that would be great. - 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: Quitting sage
On Nov 23, 2008, at 2:34 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: I only know a tiny bit about symbolic integration, but mabshoff's statement that it will be a long path is certainly an understatement. What I would like to see happen soon is some of the basic cases solved in our own code, and then passing off to some other library for the harder cases. Sage isn't about about re-inventing the wheel, and I hope that something like SymPy will become mature enough to handle all the really complicated stuff. In any case the bottleneck of pexpect is not as important for the hard cases (though perhaps the difficulty of building dependancies like lisp is good motivation to have more native code). That being said, if someone does write a full symbolic integration suite natively in Sage, that would be great. Oh, I realize that it's definitely hard. However, while it's certainly true that Sage isn't about re-inventing the wheel, the pexpect overhead can be big, especially when you're trying to evaluate many integrals. Even in my Maple code, I actually go through a fair bit of extra work to avoid extra integration calls. I'm looking at integrating terms in a finite element matrix. Since I have symmetry, I only have to do half. Each term doesn't take long to integrate since they're products of polynomials, but they add up, especially when you're working in 3D. I certainly have quite an interest in this area, so I'd appreciate any references people might suggest. Not that I'm saying I'd tackle this, but I'd like to learn more. Cheers, Tim. --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
