Re: [sage-support] Strange behavior when evaluating multivariate polynomials over integers modulo n

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:27 PM Alex Braat  wrote:
>
> Small update:
> Replacing Integers(p^2) by QuotientRing(ZZ, p^2) seems to fix the issue.

Could you open a trac ticket on this?
It looks as if multivariate polynomial rings over Integers(p^2) are
directly using Singular,
but I don't think Singular can do such computations (over non-fields)

QuotientRing(ZZ, p^2) does something else.

>
> Op maandag 8 maart 2021 om 10:34:06 UTC+1 schreef dim...@gmail.com:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:25 AM Alex Braat  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I have encountered some strange behavior when I evaluate multivariate 
>> > polynomials over the integers modulo n. For instance,
>> >
>> > In:
>> > p = 3
>> > S = Integers(p^2)
>> > R. = PolynomialRing(S)
>> > f = x^2 * y^2
>> > print(f([S(p),S(1)]), f([S(1), S(p)]))
>> >
>> > Out:
>> > 1 0
>> >
>> > while both evaluations should ofcourse be equal to 0. This does not depend 
>> > on the prime p, and is consistent in both of these versions of SageMath:
>>
>> looks like a bug (also in the 9.3.beta7)
>> sage: f(S(3),S(1))
>> 1
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 'SageMath version 8.7, Release Date: 2019-03-23'
>> > 'SageMath version 9.2, Release Date: 2020-10-24'
>> >
>> > Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> > "sage-support" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> > email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/e3b67e84-1d8b-46e4-b0dd-5558f6d4929bn%40googlegroups.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/c860111e-aeea-43ff-b6c5-5c392e590789n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/CAAWYfq0aFG%3Drtp%3DffKQc1T3ykWAXE0niAV0oQ2SQif9cRzU3Yg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-support] Strange behavior when evaluating multivariate polynomials over integers modulo n

[Alex Braat]

Small update:
Replacing Integers(p^2) by QuotientRing(ZZ, p^2) seems to fix the issue.

Op maandag 8 maart 2021 om 10:34:06 UTC+1 schreef dim...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:25 AM Alex Braat  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have encountered some strange behavior when I evaluate multivariate 
> polynomials over the integers modulo n. For instance,
> >
> > In:
> > p = 3
> > S = Integers(p^2)
> > R. = PolynomialRing(S)
> > f = x^2 * y^2
> > print(f([S(p),S(1)]), f([S(1), S(p)]))
> >
> > Out:
> > 1 0
> >
> > while both evaluations should ofcourse be equal to 0. This does not 
> depend on the prime p, and is consistent in both of these versions of 
> SageMath:
>
> looks like a bug (also in the 9.3.beta7)
> sage: f(S(3),S(1))
> 1
>
>
> >
> > 'SageMath version 8.7, Release Date: 2019-03-23'
> > 'SageMath version 9.2, Release Date: 2020-10-24'
> >
> > Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "sage-support" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/e3b67e84-1d8b-46e4-b0dd-5558f6d4929bn%40googlegroups.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/c860111e-aeea-43ff-b6c5-5c392e590789n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-support] Strange behavior when evaluating multivariate polynomials over integers modulo n

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:25 AM Alex Braat  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have encountered some strange behavior when I evaluate multivariate 
> polynomials over the integers modulo n. For instance,
>
> In:
> p = 3
> S = Integers(p^2)
> R. = PolynomialRing(S)
> f = x^2 * y^2
> print(f([S(p),S(1)]), f([S(1), S(p)]))
>
> Out:
> 1 0
>
> while both evaluations should ofcourse be equal to 0. This does not depend on 
> the prime p, and is consistent in both of these versions of SageMath:

looks like a bug (also in the 9.3.beta7)
sage: f(S(3),S(1))
1


>
> 'SageMath version 8.7, Release Date: 2019-03-23'
> 'SageMath version 9.2, Release Date: 2020-10-24'
>
> Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/e3b67e84-1d8b-46e4-b0dd-5558f6d4929bn%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/CAAWYfq3W2Y47dMdY_zJSDcL_2_5aw%3DTnqqqnOrt9WGCNcwKcDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-support] Strange behavior when evaluating multivariate polynomials over integers modulo n

[Alex Braat]

Hello,

I have encountered some strange behavior when I evaluate multivariate 
polynomials over the integers modulo n. For instance,

In:
p = 3
S = Integers(p^2)
R. = PolynomialRing(S)
f = x^2 * y^2
print(f([S(p),S(1)]), f([S(1), S(p)]))

Out:
1 0

while both evaluations should ofcourse be equal to 0. This does not depend 
on the prime p, and is consistent in both of these versions of SageMath:

'SageMath version 8.7, Release Date: 2019-03-23'
'SageMath version 9.2, Release Date: 2020-10-24'

Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/e3b67e84-1d8b-46e4-b0dd-5558f6d4929bn%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-support] Strange behavior in relabeling a graph in Sage 9.2

[Nikos Apostolakis]

Dear list,

Relabeling a graph in Sage 9.2 exhibits some strange behavior.  If the
argument is a dictionary constructed by dictionary comprehension Sage seems
to just ignore it.  If the dictionary is explicitly given then everything
works.  Here is an example

sage: bar = DiGraph([((2, 3), (1, 2), 2), ((3, 4), (3, 5), 3), ((3, 5), (2,
3), 3), ((5, 6), (5, 7), 5), ((5, 7), (3, 5), 5)])
sage: foo = [(5,6), (3,4), (5,7), (3,5), (2,3), (1,2)]
sage: bar.relabel({foo[i]: i for i in range(6)})
sage: bar.vertices()
[(1, 2), (2, 3), (3, 4), (3, 5), (5, 6), (5, 7)]
sage: ## However if I explicitly give the dictionary
sage: {foo[i]: i for i in range(6)}
{(5,6): 0, (3,4): 1, (5,7): 2, (3,5): 3, (2,3): 4, (1,2): 5}
sage: bar.relabel({(5,6): 0, (3,4): 1, (5,7): 2, (3,5): 3, (2,3): 4, (1,2):
5})
sage: bar.vertices()
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
sage: sage0_version()
'SageMath version 9.2, Release Date: 2020-10-24'


This problem doesn't seem to happen in older versions of Sage. I have Sage
8.8 in another box and the problem doesn't occur:

sage: bar = DiGraph([((2, 3), (1, 2), 2), ((3, 4), (3, 5), 3), ((3, 5), (2,
3), 3), ((5, 6), (5, 7), 5), ((5, 7), (3, 5), 5)])
sage: foo = [(5,6), (3,4), (5,7), (3,5), (2,3), (1,2)]
sage: bar.relabel({foo[i]: i for i in range(6)})
sage: bar.vertices()
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
sage: sage0_version()
'SageMath version 8.8, Release Date: 2019-06-26'

I wonder if this is caused by the transition to Python3. Some kind of lazy
evaluation?

Thanks,
Nikos Apostolakis
-- 
Οι ελαφροί ας με λέγουν ελαφρόν.
Στα σοβαρά πράγματα ήμουν πάντοτε
επιμελέστατος.

The frivolous can call me frivolous. In serious matters I've always been
most diligent.
  K. P. Kavafy

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/CAO2SUmJnoUBYS88n4QP0oU_9odJVKJE053wLSH3%3Dz2ggeNDAAw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-support] Strange behavior with RealField(n)

[Thierry Dumont]

Le 21/02/2016 20:40, John Cremona a écrit :

Try RealField(500).pi() and similar.

Yes, it works... but my small piece of code should also give correct 
results...

thanks.
t.


On 21 Feb 2016 18:10, "Thierry Dumont" mailto:tdum...@math.univ-lyon1.fr>> wrote:

I have students who want to compute decimals of pi...so, what can we
do with RealField(n) ?
I make the following script (pi.sage):


for p in [2..10]:
 R=RealField(10^p)
 pii=4*atan(R(1))
 print p,R,pii


Then, using sage 7.0 or 7.1.beta4:

attach("pi.sage")

This produces a lot of seemingly correct output, but, as it takes a
too long time to finish :-), I interrupt the computation (Ctrl-c).

So, lets try again; replace 10 by 5 in the for statement (I do not
leave sage). I get NaNs:


2 Real Field with 100 bits of precision NaN
3 Real Field with 1000 bits of precision NaN
4 Real Field with 1 bits of precision NaN
5 Real Field with 10 bits of precision NaN
.

Strange.

Yours
t.d.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<>

Re: [sage-support] Strange behavior with RealField(n)

[John Cremona]

Try RealField(500).pi() and similar.
On 21 Feb 2016 18:10, "Thierry Dumont"  wrote:

> I have students who want to compute decimals of pi...so, what can we do
> with RealField(n) ?
> I make the following script (pi.sage):
>
> 
> for p in [2..10]:
> R=RealField(10^p)
> pii=4*atan(R(1))
> print p,R,pii
> 
>
> Then, using sage 7.0 or 7.1.beta4:
>
> attach("pi.sage")
>
> This produces a lot of seemingly correct output, but, as it takes a too
> long time to finish :-), I interrupt the computation (Ctrl-c).
>
> So, lets try again; replace 10 by 5 in the for statement (I do not leave
> sage). I get NaNs:
>
>
> 2 Real Field with 100 bits of precision NaN
> 3 Real Field with 1000 bits of precision NaN
> 4 Real Field with 1 bits of precision NaN
> 5 Real Field with 10 bits of precision NaN
> .
>
> Strange.
>
> Yours
> t.d.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] Strange behavior with RealField(n)

[Thierry Dumont]

I have students who want to compute decimals of pi...so, what can we do 
with RealField(n) ?

I make the following script (pi.sage):


for p in [2..10]:
R=RealField(10^p)
pii=4*atan(R(1))
print p,R,pii


Then, using sage 7.0 or 7.1.beta4:

attach("pi.sage")

This produces a lot of seemingly correct output, but, as it takes a too 
long time to finish :-), I interrupt the computation (Ctrl-c).


So, lets try again; replace 10 by 5 in the for statement (I do not leave 
sage). I get NaNs:



2 Real Field with 100 bits of precision NaN
3 Real Field with 1000 bits of precision NaN
4 Real Field with 1 bits of precision NaN
5 Real Field with 10 bits of precision NaN
.

Strange.

Yours
t.d.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<>

[sage-support] strange behavior with sums

[Karl Schultheisz]

I'm using Sage 6.2 on Arch Linux. I have posted before about sums being 
wrong 
, 
and I am happy to see that the community took action. Thanks! I have been 
seeing other errors that may or may not be related to those addressed in 
the link above.

I open a new Sage session (command line). The following code ought to 
return (e^x - 1)/x.

sage: k = var('k')
sage: sum(x^k/factorial(k+1),k,0,oo)
1/4*sqrt(pi)*sqrt(x)*e^(1/2*x)

This looks similar to the sort of nonsense it was spitting out when 
misinterpreting 
Bessel functions from Maxima . In 
the same session, if I run the summation command again, the result is 
different.

sage: sum(x^k/factorial(k+1),k,0,oo)
sum(x^k/factorial(k + 1), k, 0, +Infinity)

And after this it will not simplify any sums, even ones it would have done 
correctly on the first try:

sage: sum(x^k/factorial(k),k,0,oo)
sum(x^k/factorial(k), k, 0, +Infinity)

Even a reset doesn't help. (As a side-note, the exit command doesn't 
survive reset.)

sage: reset()
sage: k = var('k')
sage: sum(x^k/factorial(k),k,0,oo)
sum(x^k/factorial(k), k, 0, +Infinity)
sage: exit

---
NameError Traceback (most recent call 
last)
/opt/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/all_cmdline.py in 
()
> 1 exit

NameError: name 'exit' is not defined

Finite sums seem to be ok.

sage: sum(x^k,k,0,3)
x^3 + x^2 + x + 1
sage: m = var('m')
sage: sum(x^k,k,0,m)
(x^(m + 1) - 1)/(x - 1)

Any help is greatly appreciated.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-support] strange behavior in sage 5.0

[Kenneth A. Ribet]

Any advice here?  Am I doing something wrong:

> sage: 1+1
> 2
> sage: (0.8*0.15)/(0.8*0.15 + 0.2*0.85)
> 
> 
> Unhandled SIGILL: An illegal instruction occurred in Sage.
> This probably occurred because a *compiled* component of Sage has a bug
> in it and is not properly wrapped with sig_on(), sig_off(). You might
> want to run Sage under gdb with 'sage -gdb' to debug this.
> Sage will now terminate.
> 
> /Users/kribet/Desktop/sage/spkg/bin/sage: line 312: 70167 Illegal 
> instruction: 4  sage-ipython "$@" -i

Ken

-- 
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

Re: Sage on iPhone - Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[calcpage]

I check my student's worksheets (those they share) on my iPod Touch no 
problem from sagenb.


The only problem is viewing a plot() in 3D as the jre is not supported 
on the iPod Touch's Safari.


HTH,
A. Jorge Garcia
http://calcpage.tripod.com

Teacher & Professor
Applied Mathematics, Physics & Computer Science
Baldwin Senior High School & Nassau Community College


-Original Message-
From: William Stein 
To: sage-support@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sat, Jun 12, 2010 11:55 pm
Subject: Sage on iPhone - Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix 
substitution


On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:


On Jun 12, 2010, at 20:30 , William Stein wrote:


On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:


On Jun 12, 2010, at 19:07 , William Stein wrote:


On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:


On Jun 12, 2010, at 17:27 , Byungchul Cha wrote:

[snip]


[snip]


I find that hard to believe.  I thought you had Sage running on all 

things digital...




Your right that I could check it on my iPhone, but I was lazy.    I'm
working on building sage *on* my ipad bit haven't finished yet


OK, that would be cool.  Would one have to jailbreak to run it?



Yes, unfortunately.  Also there's no iPhone fortran (yet), so only
parts of sage will build.
I'll show you at MSRI at sage days 22...


Justin

--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
---
Like the ski resort full of girls hunting for husbands
and husbands hunting for girls, the situation is not
as symmetrical as it might seem.
  - Alan MacKay
--

--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 

sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 

http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support

URL: http://www.sagemath.org



--
William Stein
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 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support

URL: http://www.sagemath.org


--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[Robert Bradshaw]

On Jun 12, 2010, at 17:27 , Byungchul Cha wrote:


Please tell me if this is a bug, or, I'm missing something obvious...

sage: a = 3 # Assign a value to a variable a
sage: b = a # Create a copy of a


You're not really copying a, you're just making 'b' refer to the same  
thing that 'a' does, i.e. '3'.



sage: b = 2 # Change the value of b


Now b points to a different integer (2).


sage: b
2
sage: a # The value of a remains unchanged, as expected.
3

So far, it looks good to me. But, when I do a similar thing with
matrices, it doesn't look to be the same.

sage: v = matrix(ZZ, 3, range(9))
sage: u = v


u and v point to the same thing.


sage: u[2] = [0,0,0]


The matrix stored in the variable u has not been reassigned, it' been  
mutated.



sage: u
[0 1 2]
[3 4 5]
[0 0 0]
sage: v
[0 1 2]
[3 4 5]
[0 0 0]

Shouldn't the value of v remain the same? Why does the change in u
(or, a row of u) affect v?




On Jun 12, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Justin C. Walker wrote:



On Jun 12, 2010, at 19:07 , William Stein wrote:


On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:


On Jun 12, 2010, at 17:27 , Byungchul Cha wrote:

[snip]

Shouldn't the value of v remain the same? Why does the change in u
(or, a row of u) affect v?

[snip]
For, e.g., integers, "u=v" means that the names u,v both refer to  
their own copies of the value in question.




Are you sure???  I think you statement that u is a new copy is  
wrong.   I bet


u is v

would still return true above.


Picky picky picky.  I was hoping to avoid a trip into the twisty  
maze of passages in language definition (all of which are subtly  
different :-}).  But you are correct.  "u is v" does return true and  
the two actually refer to the same (physical) value.  And, if one  
variable is modified, this doesn't modify the other, or the value  
that both previously referred to.


Actually, even in the case of integers, if you were to modify one, it  
would modify the other. Most object are (basically) immutable, so this  
doesn't come up. Assignment never copies, it only creates references.


- Robert

--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

Sage on iPhone - Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[William Stein]

On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2010, at 20:30 , William Stein wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2010, at 19:07 , William Stein wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2010, at 17:27 , Byungchul Cha wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I find that hard to believe.  I thought you had Sage running on all things 
> digital...
>
>
>
> Your right that I could check it on my iPhone, but I was lazy.    I'm
> working on building sage *on* my ipad bit haven't finished yet
>
>
> OK, that would be cool.  Would one have to jailbreak to run it?
>

Yes, unfortunately.  Also there's no iPhone fortran (yet), so only
parts of sage will build.
I'll show you at MSRI at sage days 22...

> Justin
>
> --
> Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
> Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
> ---
> Like the ski resort full of girls hunting for husbands
> and husbands hunting for girls, the situation is not
> as symmetrical as it might seem.
>   - Alan MacKay
> --
>
> --
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
> URL: http://www.sagemath.org
>

-- 
William Stein
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 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[Justin C. Walker]

On Jun 12, 2010, at 20:30 , William Stein wrote:


On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:


On Jun 12, 2010, at 19:07 , William Stein wrote:


On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:


On Jun 12, 2010, at 17:27 , Byungchul Cha wrote:

[snip]


[snip]


I find that hard to believe.  I thought you had Sage running on all  
things digital...




Your right that I could check it on my iPhone, but I was lazy.I'm
working on building sage *on* my ipad bit haven't finished yet


OK, that would be cool.  Would one have to jailbreak to run it?

Justin

--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
---
Like the ski resort full of girls hunting for husbands
and husbands hunting for girls, the situation is not
as symmetrical as it might seem.
  - Alan MacKay
--

--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[William Stein]

On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2010, at 19:07 , William Stein wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2010, at 17:27 , Byungchul Cha wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Shouldn't the value of v remain the same? Why does the change in u
> (or, a row of u) affect v?
>
> [snip]
>
> For, e.g., integers, "u=v" means that the names u,v both refer to their own 
> copies of the value in question.
>
>
>
> Are you sure???  I think you statement that u is a new copy is wrong.   I bet
>
>  u is v
>
> would still return true above.
>
>
> Picky picky picky.  I was hoping to avoid a trip into the twisty maze of 
> passages in language definition (all of which are subtly different :-}).  But 
> you are correct.  "u is v" does return true and the two actually refer to the 
> same (physical) value.  And, if one variable is modified, this doesn't modify 
> the other, or the value that both previously referred to.
>
>
>   I can't check this now, since am on iPhone
>
>
> I find that hard to believe.  I thought you had Sage running on all things 
> digital...
>

Your right that I could check it on my iPhone, but I was lazy.I'm
working on building sage *on* my ipad bit haven't finished yet



> Justin
>
> --
> Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large
> Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income
> 
> When LuteFisk is outlawed,
> Only outlaws will have LuteFisk
> 
>
>
>
> --
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
> URL: http://www.sagemath.org
>

-- 
William Stein
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 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[Justin C. Walker]

On Jun 12, 2010, at 19:07 , William Stein wrote:


On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:


On Jun 12, 2010, at 17:27 , Byungchul Cha wrote:

[snip]

Shouldn't the value of v remain the same? Why does the change in u
(or, a row of u) affect v?

[snip]
For, e.g., integers, "u=v" means that the names u,v both refer to  
their own copies of the value in question.




Are you sure???  I think you statement that u is a new copy is  
wrong.   I bet


 u is v

would still return true above.


Picky picky picky.  I was hoping to avoid a trip into the twisty maze  
of passages in language definition (all of which are subtly  
different :-}).  But you are correct.  "u is v" does return true and  
the two actually refer to the same (physical) value.  And, if one  
variable is modified, this doesn't modify the other, or the value that  
both previously referred to.



  I can't check this now, since am on iPhone


I find that hard to believe.  I thought you had Sage running on all  
things digital...


Justin

--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large
Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income

When LuteFisk is outlawed,
Only outlaws will have LuteFisk




--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[William Stein]

On Saturday, June 12, 2010, Justin C. Walker  wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2010, at 17:27 , Byungchul Cha wrote:
>
>
>
> Please tell me if this is a bug, or, I'm missing something obvious...
>
> sage: a = 3 # Assign a value to a variable a
> sage: b = a # Create a copy of a
> sage: b = 2 # Change the value of b
> sage: b
> 2
> sage: a # The value of a remains unchanged, as expected.
> 3
>
> So far, it looks good to me. But, when I do a similar thing with
> matrices, it doesn't look to be the same.
>
> sage: v = matrix(ZZ, 3, range(9))
> sage: u = v
> sage: u[2] = [0,0,0]
> sage: u
> [0 1 2]
> [3 4 5]
> [0 0 0]
> sage: v
> [0 1 2]
> [3 4 5]
> [0 0 0]
>
> Shouldn't the value of v remain the same? Why does the change in u
> (or, a row of u) affect v?
>
>
> You might think the behavior should be the same, but that's not the case.  
> Objects with structure (matrices, for example) are copied "by reference", 
> while things like integers, which have little or no structure (from the 
> user's perspective at any rate) are copied "by value".
>
> What that means is that, for matrices, "u=v" means that the names u,v now 
> refer to the same Sage object, so when you modify one, you are modifying the 
> other (since you are really modifying the underlying object).
>
> For, e.g., integers, "u=v" means that the names u,v both refer to their own 
> copies of the value in question.
>

Are you sure???  I think you statement that u is a new copy is wrong.   I bet

  u is v

would still return true above.   I can't check this now, since am on iPhone



> This is, BTW, the way 
> Pythttp://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/29/energy.boosters/hon works, and Python 
> is the language with which (most of) Sage is implemented.
>
> In case you didn't already know that :-}
>
> HTH.
>
> Justin
>
> --
> Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
> Director
> Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's income
> ---
> --
> They said it couldn't be done, but sometimes,
> it doesn't work out that way.
>   - Casey Stengel
> --
>
>
>
> --
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
> URL: http://www.sagemath.org
>

-- 
William Stein
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 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[Mike Hansen]

Hello,

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Byungchul Cha  wrote:
>
> Please tell me if this is a bug, or, I'm missing something obvious...
>
> sage: a = 3 # Assign a value to a variable a
> sage: b = a # Create a copy of a

This does not create a copy of a.  When you do "a = 3", this creates
new object for the integer 3 and then makes "a" point to that object.
When you do "b = a", it makes b point to the object that you
originally created.  When you do "b = 2", it makes a new object for
the integer 2 and makes "b" point to that.  Notice that you are never
changing (mutating) any of the objects.

>
> So far, it looks good to me. But, when I do a similar thing with
> matrices, it doesn't look to be the same.
> ...
> Shouldn't the value of v remain the same? Why does the change in u
> (or, a row of u) affect v?

Here, the line "sage: u[2] = [0,0,0]" change the object that u in
referencing.  Since u and v point to that same object (as above), you
see the changes when you look at v.  You can use copy() to actually
make a copy of v:

sage: sage: v = matrix(ZZ, 3, range(9))
sage: v = matrix(ZZ, 3, range(9))
sage: u = copy(v)
sage: u[2] = [0,0,0]
sage: u
[0 1 2]
[3 4 5]
[0 0 0]
sage: v
[0 1 2]
[3 4 5]
[6 7 8]

--Mike

-- 
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

Re: [sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[Justin C. Walker]

On Jun 12, 2010, at 17:27 , Byungchul Cha wrote:



Please tell me if this is a bug, or, I'm missing something obvious...

sage: a = 3 # Assign a value to a variable a
sage: b = a # Create a copy of a
sage: b = 2 # Change the value of b
sage: b
2
sage: a # The value of a remains unchanged, as expected.
3

So far, it looks good to me. But, when I do a similar thing with
matrices, it doesn't look to be the same.

sage: v = matrix(ZZ, 3, range(9))
sage: u = v
sage: u[2] = [0,0,0]
sage: u
[0 1 2]
[3 4 5]
[0 0 0]
sage: v
[0 1 2]
[3 4 5]
[0 0 0]

Shouldn't the value of v remain the same? Why does the change in u
(or, a row of u) affect v?


You might think the behavior should be the same, but that's not the  
case.  Objects with structure (matrices, for example) are copied "by  
reference", while things like integers, which have little or no  
structure (from the user's perspective at any rate) are copied "by  
value".


What that means is that, for matrices, "u=v" means that the names u,v  
now refer to the same Sage object, so when you modify one, you are  
modifying the other (since you are really modifying the underlying  
object).


For, e.g., integers, "u=v" means that the names u,v both refer to  
their own copies of the value in question.


This is, BTW, the way Python works, and Python is the language with  
which (most of) Sage is implemented.


In case you didn't already know that :-}

HTH.

Justin

--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
Director
Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's income
---
--
They said it couldn't be done, but sometimes,
it doesn't work out that way.
  - Casey Stengel
--



--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

[sage-support] strange behavior in matrix substitution

[Byungchul Cha]

Please tell me if this is a bug, or, I'm missing something obvious...

sage: a = 3 # Assign a value to a variable a
sage: b = a # Create a copy of a
sage: b = 2 # Change the value of b
sage: b
2
sage: a # The value of a remains unchanged, as expected.
3

So far, it looks good to me. But, when I do a similar thing with
matrices, it doesn't look to be the same.

sage: v = matrix(ZZ, 3, range(9))
sage: u = v
sage: u[2] = [0,0,0]
sage: u
[0 1 2]
[3 4 5]
[0 0 0]
sage: v
[0 1 2]
[3 4 5]
[0 0 0]

Shouldn't the value of v remain the same? Why does the change in u
(or, a row of u) affect v?

-- 
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

[sage-support] strange behavior on assigning string with single quotes

[Rajeev]

Hi,

I am finding a very strange behavior in notebook. Evaluating

a = 'hello'

gives

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "", line 1, in 
  File "_sage_input_12.py", line 4, in 
print _support_.syseval(python, ur\u0027\u0027\u0027a = \u0027hello
\u0027\u0027\u0027\u0027, \u0027/home/rajeev/sage_notebook/
sage_notebook.sagenb/home/admin/32/cells/25\u0027)
  File "", line 1
print _support_.syseval(python, ur'''a = 'hello, '/home/rajeev/
sage_notebook/sage_notebook.sagenb/home/admin/32/cells/25')
 
^
SyntaxError: EOL while scanning string literal

There is no problem when I use double quotes. I am using sage 4.2 and
I have selected python from the dropdown menu at the top.

Rajeev

-- 
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org

[sage-support] Strange behavior in timeit

[VictorMiller]

I was trying to find out how fast a calculation was (applying an
isogeny of degree on an elliptic curve over
a finite field).  At first I noticed that when I repeated a timeit
call with the same expression I was getting monotonically increasing
numbers, so I decided to try something more systematic. I got the
following peculiar results on sagenb.org (just now).  The average
times keep getting longer and longer.  Could this be some bug in the
way that the calls to internal timer routines are used?

 phi = E.isogeny([E(0),P,-P])
for i in xrange(20): timeit('phi(Q)')

625 loops, best of 3: 1.17 ms per loop
625 loops, best of 3: 1.75 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 2.1 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 2.22 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 2.3 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 2.4 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 2.52 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 2.73 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 3.02 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 3.32 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 3.48 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 3.73 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 3.79 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 4.21 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 4.56 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 5.09 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 5.63 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 6.23 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 6.86 ms per loop
125 loops, best of 3: 7.52 ms per loop

Victor

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[sage-support] strange behavior

[Florian Beutler]

Hay
I am a bit annoyed by sage... I just want to print a function two
times and sage gives me an error... this is the first script

#!/usr/bin/env sage -python
import sys
from sage.all import *

import functions
from functions import *

grav_const = 4.3e-06
pi = 3.14159265358979323846
sat_mass = 20.

print "Ok... dann legen wir mal los!\n"
print "step1: definition of the density profile"

r = 0.08

print rho(r),"\n"

print "step3: definition of the integrated mass"

print mass(r).n(),"\n"

print "step3: definition of the integrated mass"

print mass(r).n(),"\n"

the function definition is the following

import sys
from sage.all import *

def rho(r):
return  1.32419e+08/(1.+(r/0.81))**3

def mass(r):
pi = 3.14159265358979323846

x=var('x')
assume(x>0)
i_term = integral(x**2*rho(x), x, 0, r)

return i_term*4.*pi;

so I just try to plot the mass two times... the error message of sage
is not very helpful (at least to me)
thanks for any help
florian



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[sage-support] Strange behavior on sagenb

[Jason Bandlow]

Hi all,

When I start up a clean version of sage 3.4 on my local machine and
enter the following into a notebook cell:

M=load('http://www.math.upenn.edu/~jbandlow/sage_data/dic_of_kst_to_G_cob_mats.sobj')
# This object is a dictionary
key = (1, Partition([1]),Partition([2]))
print key in M.keys()
M[key]

I get the following (correct) output:

Attempting to load remote file:
http://www.math.upenn.edu/~jbandlow/sage_data/dic_of_kst_to_G_cob_mats.s\
obj
Loading: [..]
True
# A matrix that I won't reproduce here

When I enter the exact same text in a notebook cell on sagenb, I get the
following output:

Attempting to load remote file:
http://www.math.upenn.edu/~jbandlow/sage_data/dic_of_kst_to_G_cob_mats.s\
obj
Loading: [..]
True
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "", line 1, in 
  File
"/home/sage/sagenb/sage_notebook/worksheets/jbandlow/11/code/41.py",
line 10, in 
M[key]
  File
"/home/sage/sage_install/sage-a/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/SQLAlchemy-0.4.6-py2.5.egg/",
line 1, in 

KeyError: (1, [1], [2])

Why am I getting a KeyError if key in M.keys() is returning True?  And
why is the behavior on sagenb different than on my local, 3.4
built-from-source on Ubuntu 10.8 distribution?

Any ideas are very welcome!

Cheers,
Jason


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[sage-support] Strange behavior in Partition(x).next()

[mekaj]

I wrote a couple methods that relied on Partition(x).next() where 'x'
is a list of Integers.  Essentially I wanted to print out all the
possible partitions of an Integer so I wrote the following functions:

def get_partitions(x,y=[]):
"""
Gets the list of the input argument and all the
partitions of it that follow it lexicographically.
See Partition.next().
"""

if type(x) is Integer:
return get_partitions([x])
y.append(x)
x = Partition(x).next()
if x != False:
return get_partitions(x)
return y

def print_partitions(x):
"""
Prints the argument and the list of partitions that
follow it lexicographically.
"""

part = get_partitions(x)
for i in part:
print i


Now I would expect that when I call print_partitions(x), where 'x' is
an Integer that SAGE would print all possible partitions of 'x'.  The
first time I call the function it works as expected.  However, for
each call after that, it seems to concatenate the results to the
results of all the previous calls.  Here's an example:

sage: print_partitions(10)
[10]
[9, 1]
[8, 2]
[8, 1, 1]
[7, 3]
[7, 2, 1]
[7, 1, 1, 1]
[6, 4]
[6, 3, 1]
[6, 2, 2]
[6, 2, 1, 1]
[6, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[5, 5]
[5, 4, 1]
[5, 3, 2]
[5, 3, 1, 1]
[5, 2, 2, 1]
[5, 2, 1, 1, 1]
[5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[4, 4, 2]
[4, 4, 1, 1]
[4, 3, 3]
[4, 3, 2, 1]
[4, 3, 1, 1, 1]
[4, 2, 2, 2]
[4, 2, 2, 1, 1]
[4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[3, 3, 3, 1]
[3, 3, 2, 2]
[3, 3, 2, 1, 1]
[3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[3, 2, 2, 2, 1]
[3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]
[3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[2, 2, 2, 2, 2]
[2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1]
[2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]

sage:  print_partitions(5)
[10]
[9, 1]
[8, 2]
[8, 1, 1]
[7, 3]
[7, 2, 1]
[7, 1, 1, 1]
[6, 4]
[6, 3, 1]
[6, 2, 2]
[6, 2, 1, 1]
[6, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[5, 5]
[5, 4, 1]
[5, 3, 2]
[5, 3, 1, 1]
[5, 2, 2, 1]
[5, 2, 1, 1, 1]
[5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[4, 4, 2]
[4, 4, 1, 1]
[4, 3, 3]
[4, 3, 2, 1]
[4, 3, 1, 1, 1]
[4, 2, 2, 2]
[4, 2, 2, 1, 1]
[4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[3, 3, 3, 1]
[3, 3, 2, 2]
[3, 3, 2, 1, 1]
[3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[3, 2, 2, 2, 1]
[3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]
[3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[2, 2, 2, 2, 2]
[2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1]
[2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[5]
[4, 1]
[3, 2]
[3, 1, 1]
[2, 2, 1]
[2, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1]


Notice that the second function call displays the partitions of 10
before displaying the expected partitions of 5.  This behavior occurs
when I use just the get_partitions() function.  The print_partitions()
relies on that function so I think the problem is in get_partitions()
or in the Partition(x).next() function.  Does anyone see the problem?
Thanks.

-Jake (mekaj)

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/ and http://sage.scipy.org/sage/
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[sage-support] Strange behavior with multi-line input

[Justin C. Walker]

Hi, all,

I'm using sage-1.4.

On my MacBook Pro, with a "mercurial" sage-main install.

On my dual G5 PowerMac, I have a "stock" 1.4 install (except for a  
slightly modified 'pari' install, aI modified "get_dlld" script).

I see strange behavior on the MacBook Pro, as follows:

If I type, say

for i in range(0,5):
 for j in range(0,5):
^C
and, at the 'sage: ' prompt, type "^", I get the above, more or less  
properly indented:

sage: for i in range(0,5):
 for j in range(0,5):

Typing ^A gets me to the beginning of the first line; and ^E gets me  
to the end of second.

This does not happen on the PowerMac with the stock install.

Clues?

In addition to sage-main, on the MacBook Pro, I have two sage- clones  
that I am experimenting with.  'sage' -> 'sage-main' currently.

Justin

--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
---
My wife 'n kids 'n dogs are gone,
I can't get Jesus on the phone,
But Ol' Milwaukee's Best is my best friend.
---



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/ and http://sage.scipy.org/sage/
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---