Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On 31 December 2012 17:09, William Stein wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 8:54 AM, David Kirkby > wrote: >> >> On 28 December 2012 17:55, Ivan Andrus wrote: >> > On Dec 28, 2012, at 4:47 PM, David Kirkby >> > wrote: >> >> >> Mathematica were not tested regularly - I don't know if that has >> >> changed. >> > >> > Of course, the Mathematica interface cannot be tested as often as >> > everything else because not everyone has a license. However, #13540 would >> > be a good step towards getting it (and other optional tests) tested more. >> > >> > -Ivan >> >> It is fairly easy to get a trial license for Mathematica. The last I >> knew, it was as simple as >> >> 1) Creating an account on the Wolfram Research web site >> 2) Request a trial. >> 3) You get sent a download link >> 4) Download, and run. It connects to the internet to get a trial license >> key. >> >> and away you go. At one point someone had to approve your trial, but >> now they seem to have dispensed with any human interaction, and one >> can get the trial immediately. >> >> That was the case last I looked, which was about 6 months ago. Things >> might have changed. > > > It goes without saying, but this isn't sustainable. You get 30 days, and > then it's over. It's enough to do a periodic check Sage still works with Mathematica I know when I tried to use the Sage-> Mathematica interface, and found it was broke, it became apparent it had been broken for many months. That could be avoided. Dave -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 8:54 AM, David Kirkby wrote: > On 28 December 2012 17:55, Ivan Andrus wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2012, at 4:47 PM, David Kirkby > wrote: > > >> Mathematica were not tested regularly - I don't know if that has > >> changed. > > > > Of course, the Mathematica interface cannot be tested as often as > everything else because not everyone has a license. However, #13540 would > be a good step towards getting it (and other optional tests) tested more. > > > > -Ivan > > It is fairly easy to get a trial license for Mathematica. The last I > knew, it was as simple as > > 1) Creating an account on the Wolfram Research web site > 2) Request a trial. > 3) You get sent a download link > 4) Download, and run. It connects to the internet to get a trial license > key. > > and away you go. At one point someone had to approve your trial, but > now they seem to have dispensed with any human interaction, and one > can get the trial immediately. > > That was the case last I looked, which was about 6 months ago. Things > might have changed. > It goes without saying, but this isn't sustainable. You get 30 days, and then it's over. > > > > Dave > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-support" group. > 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. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en. > > > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On 28 December 2012 17:55, Ivan Andrus wrote: > On Dec 28, 2012, at 4:47 PM, David Kirkby wrote: >> Mathematica were not tested regularly - I don't know if that has >> changed. > > Of course, the Mathematica interface cannot be tested as often as everything > else because not everyone has a license. However, #13540 would be a good > step towards getting it (and other optional tests) tested more. > > -Ivan It is fairly easy to get a trial license for Mathematica. The last I knew, it was as simple as 1) Creating an account on the Wolfram Research web site 2) Request a trial. 3) You get sent a download link 4) Download, and run. It connects to the internet to get a trial license key. and away you go. At one point someone had to approve your trial, but now they seem to have dispensed with any human interaction, and one can get the trial immediately. That was the case last I looked, which was about 6 months ago. Things might have changed. Dave -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM, David Kirkby wrote: > On 29 December 2012 02:39, William Stein wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:11 PM, David Kirkby > > wrote: > >> > >> On 28 December 2012 16:47, William Stein wrote: > >> > also make it an optional sage package). > >> > >> This is what I was thinking, but I personally thought it worth asking > >> WRI exactly where we stood if using their protocol. > >> > >> At the end of the day, anything you do to circumvent using their > >> shared library, WRI could put a stop to without changing any code - > >> just their license conditions. When Mathematica 10 comes out, one of > >> the conditions of that license is that you can't control Mathematica > >> from external programs without the use of the Mathlink library. At > > > > > > That would not be a problem at all. The very sentence that you were > > half-quoting from my email started: "It will also link in the wolfram > > mathlink library..." so the mathlink library is used. > > The issue there is it can't be used for commerical use - at leasat > without getting a mathlink license. Your paragraph above was about WRI changing their license when Mathematica 10 comes out. > >> which point, although the code would work, it would be against the > >> license to use it. > > > > > > I don't even know what to ask them. Do you want them to change their > > license so that it is GPL-compatible -- that seems ridiculous. > > I think it is ridiculous you asking me such a question. > > IF Sage could do what jmath does, without breaching the GPL and > without breaching Wolfram Research's license, then that would be good. > I'm not so sure it is possible, but it might be. > > I don't see any issue with you creating a program which can link into > the Mathlink library. It is less clear to me what license the person > using the code is then govenend by if they chose to link to the WRI > library. > jmath does not seem to be an example of reverse engineering the MathLink > > wire protocol. The jmath website > > (http://robotics.caltech.edu/~radford/jmath/) explains that jmath is > simply > > an application that links in the MathLink library. > > Agreed. So why do you first mention reverse engineering? I don't see > the point in trying to reverse engineer anything myself. If I write and BSD-license a program that communicates directly with a Mathematica kernel using the Mathlink *protocol* (but does *not* link to any WRI code), then people can use that BSD-licensed program in any other program. This is in sharp contrast to the situation with WRI's own Mathlink library.This is the point. Creating such a program might violate the DMCA. -- William > Dave > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-support" group. > 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. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en. > > > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On 29 December 2012 02:39, William Stein wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:11 PM, David Kirkby > wrote: >> >> On 28 December 2012 16:47, William Stein wrote: >> > also make it an optional sage package). >> >> This is what I was thinking, but I personally thought it worth asking >> WRI exactly where we stood if using their protocol. >> >> At the end of the day, anything you do to circumvent using their >> shared library, WRI could put a stop to without changing any code - >> just their license conditions. When Mathematica 10 comes out, one of >> the conditions of that license is that you can't control Mathematica >> from external programs without the use of the Mathlink library. At > > > That would not be a problem at all. The very sentence that you were > half-quoting from my email started: "It will also link in the wolfram > mathlink library..." so the mathlink library is used. The issue there is it can't be used for commerical use - at leasat without getting a mathlink license. >> which point, although the code would work, it would be against the >> license to use it. > > > I don't even know what to ask them. Do you want them to change their > license so that it is GPL-compatible -- that seems ridiculous. I think it is ridiculous you asking me such a question. IF Sage could do what jmath does, without breaching the GPL and without breaching Wolfram Research's license, then that would be good. I'm not so sure it is possible, but it might be. I don't see any issue with you creating a program which can link into the Mathlink library. It is less clear to me what license the person using the code is then govenend by if they chose to link to the WRI library. > jmath does not seem to be an example of reverse engineering the MathLink > wire protocol. The jmath website > (http://robotics.caltech.edu/~radford/jmath/) explains that jmath is simply > an application that links in the MathLink library. Agreed. So why do you first mention reverse engineering? I don't see the point in trying to reverse engineer anything myself. Dave -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:11 PM, David Kirkby wrote: > On 28 December 2012 16:47, William Stein wrote: > > also make it an optional sage package). > > This is what I was thinking, but I personally thought it worth asking > WRI exactly where we stood if using their protocol. > > At the end of the day, anything you do to circumvent using their > shared library, WRI could put a stop to without changing any code - > just their license conditions. When Mathematica 10 comes out, one of > the conditions of that license is that you can't control Mathematica > from external programs without the use of the Mathlink library. At > That would not be a problem at all. The very sentence that you were half-quoting from my email started: "It will also link in the wolfram mathlink library..." so the mathlink library is used. > which point, although the code would work, it would be against the > license to use it. > I don't even know what to ask them. Do you want them to change their license so that it is GPL-compatible -- that seems ridiculous. > > Hence my feeling it is better to ask WRI, and work with them rather > than against them. > > > The other alternative is reverse engineering the protocol for the > > Mathematica REPL. I can't imagine it is very complicated, since there > are a > > few canonical choices for such things. > > > > William > > 'jmath' has existed for years as a nice GPL'ed front end for > Mathematica, and as far as I'm aware, WRI have never tried to stop it. > So I don't think they would care if Sage implement something similar. > But I personally would rather ask. You see a draft of a mesage I > intended sending, but also the negative comments about it, so I never > bothered. > jmath does not seem to be an example of reverse engineering the MathLink wire protocol. The jmath website ( http://robotics.caltech.edu/~radford/jmath/) explains that jmath is simply an application that links in the MathLink library. > > > > Dave > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-support" group. > 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. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en. > > > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On 28 December 2012 16:47, William Stein wrote: > also make it an optional sage package). This is what I was thinking, but I personally thought it worth asking WRI exactly where we stood if using their protocol. At the end of the day, anything you do to circumvent using their shared library, WRI could put a stop to without changing any code - just their license conditions. When Mathematica 10 comes out, one of the conditions of that license is that you can't control Mathematica from external programs without the use of the Mathlink library. At which point, although the code would work, it would be against the license to use it. Hence my feeling it is better to ask WRI, and work with them rather than against them. > The other alternative is reverse engineering the protocol for the > Mathematica REPL. I can't imagine it is very complicated, since there are a > few canonical choices for such things. > > William 'jmath' has existed for years as a nice GPL'ed front end for Mathematica, and as far as I'm aware, WRI have never tried to stop it. So I don't think they would care if Sage implement something similar. But I personally would rather ask. You see a draft of a mesage I intended sending, but also the negative comments about it, so I never bothered. Dave -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On 28 December 2012 16:41, Volker Braun wrote: > On Friday, December 28, 2012 4:19:11 PM UTC, William wrote: >> >> I disagree. The only reason Sage doesn't have an interface to Mathematica >> written using the MathLink protocol is that nobody has got around to >> writting such an interface. I would like to strongly encourage people to >> write one. > > > Is there actually a MathLink wire protocol that is documented (and stable > across Mathematica versions)? All MathLink docs I ever saw just show you how > to use shared library that Mathematica comes with. I guess this depends on your definition of protocol. Personally I would say using Mathlink http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/MathLinkAndExternalProgramCommunicationOverview.html would provide a protocol which is stable across mathematica versions. I know I used jmath with many versions, and I never knew it to break, whereas the current way in Sage is fragile. But, as you say, that does involve linking to a Wolfram Research library and it also requires using one of their header files. Their license permits this for non-commerical use, or one can get a commerical license, for which I assume you have to pay. Dave -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
Of course #13540 will on most machines enable internet-using tests. So somebody needs to fix the finance / stock price interfaces that currently fail their doctests *hint* *hint* ;-) On Friday, December 28, 2012 5:55:48 PM UTC, Ivan Andrus wrote: > > Of course, the Mathematica interface cannot be tested as often as > everything else because not everyone has a license. However, #13540 would > be a good step towards getting it (and other optional tests) tested more. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On Dec 28, 2012, at 4:47 PM, David Kirkby wrote: > On 28 December 2012 14:53, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: >> Note to (potential) users of the sage interface to Mathematica : something >> seems to have changed in Mathematica version 9 interface with "the rest of >> the world". >> >> Setup(s) : Debian wheezy with self-compiled sage v 5.4.1 then v 5.5, >> Mathematica Linux 64 bits V8 then V9. >> (1) sage v 5.4 <--> Mathematica V8 : OK >> (2)sage v 5.5 <--> Mathematica V9 : doesn't work. Sage reports to be "unable >> to start Mathematica". However, Mathematica works both from the command line >> (math) or from the GUI (mathematica). >> (3) sage v 5.5 <--> Mathematica V8 : OK again. >> >> I've also seen (1) and (3) on a smallish 32 bit machine (Again, debian >> wheezy + self-compiled sage (this was slooow..)). >> >> Shouldn't I open a ticket on this ? > > It would be best to open a ticket. > >> Hints on further relevant information ? > > IMHO, the way Sage calls Mathematica is not optimal. I recall opening > a ticket before, when Sage would not work with my version of > Mathematica. It turns out that the optional interfaces like > Mathematica were not tested regularly - I don't know if that has > changed. Of course, the Mathematica interface cannot be tested as often as everything else because not everyone has a license. However, #13540 would be a good step towards getting it (and other optional tests) tested more. -Ivan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > I'm leaning towards a BSD-licensed C library with a RPC mechanism (tcp/ip > socket or named pipe). That would be pretty minimal and you don't have to > worry about Python stuff when linking on the proprietary side. Yes, that makes a *lot* of sense. It's what MathLink should be in the first place. William > > > > On Friday, December 28, 2012 4:47:46 PM UTC, William wrote: >> >>1. Write a standalone Python program that listens for incoming >> connections on some TCP port. It will also link in the wolfram mathlink >> library, e.g., using ctypes. Put it on pypy under say the BSD license. >> It's a completely separate program (and process) from Sage. What it does >> is sit there and accept connections, then forward all traffic to >> Mathematica. >> 2. Use (1) from Sage. Probably the user has to "easy_install" 1 (or >> we can also make it an optional sage package). >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-support" group. > 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. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en. > > > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
I'm leaning towards a BSD-licensed C library with a RPC mechanism (tcp/ip socket or named pipe). That would be pretty minimal and you don't have to worry about Python stuff when linking on the proprietary side. On Friday, December 28, 2012 4:47:46 PM UTC, William wrote: > >1. Write a standalone Python program that listens for incoming > connections on some TCP port. It will also link in the wolfram mathlink > library, e.g., using ctypes. Put it on pypy under say the BSD license. > It's a completely separate program (and process) from Sage. What it does > is sit there and accept connections, then forward all traffic to > Mathematica. >2. Use (1) from Sage. Probably the user has to "easy_install" 1 (or we > can also make it an optional sage package). > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > On Friday, December 28, 2012 4:19:11 PM UTC, William wrote: > >> I disagree. The only reason Sage doesn't have an interface to >> Mathematica written using the MathLink protocol is that nobody has got >> around to writting such an interface. I would like to strongly encourage >> people to write one. > > > Is there actually a MathLink wire protocol that is documented (and stable > across Mathematica versions)? > This page has a suggestion: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/610/is-the-communication-protocol-underlying-mathlink-user-customizable It's basically this: 1. Write a standalone Python program that listens for incoming connections on some TCP port. It will also link in the wolfram mathlink library, e.g., using ctypes. Put it on pypy under say the BSD license. It's a completely separate program (and process) from Sage. What it does is sit there and accept connections, then forward all traffic to Mathematica. 2. Use (1) from Sage. Probably the user has to "easy_install" 1 (or we can also make it an optional sage package). The other alternative is reverse engineering the protocol for the Mathematica REPL. I can't imagine it is very complicated, since there are a few canonical choices for such things. William > All MathLink docs I ever saw just show you how to use shared library that > Mathematica comes with. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-support" group. > 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. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en. > > > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On Friday, December 28, 2012 4:19:11 PM UTC, William wrote: > I disagree. The only reason Sage doesn't have an interface to Mathematica > written using the MathLink protocol is that nobody has got around to > writting such an interface. I would like to strongly encourage people to > write one. Is there actually a MathLink wire protocol that is documented (and stable across Mathematica versions)? All MathLink docs I ever saw just show you how to use shared library that Mathematica comes with. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Kirkby wrote: > On 28 December 2012 14:53, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: > > Note to (potential) users of the sage interface to Mathematica : > something > > seems to have changed in Mathematica version 9 interface with "the rest > of > > the world". > > > > Setup(s) : Debian wheezy with self-compiled sage v 5.4.1 then v 5.5, > > Mathematica Linux 64 bits V8 then V9. > > (1) sage v 5.4 <--> Mathematica V8 : OK > > (2)sage v 5.5 <--> Mathematica V9 : doesn't work. Sage reports to be > "unable > > to start Mathematica". However, Mathematica works both from the command > line > > (math) or from the GUI (mathematica). > > (3) sage v 5.5 <--> Mathematica V8 : OK again. > > > > I've also seen (1) and (3) on a smallish 32 bit machine (Again, debian > > wheezy + self-compiled sage (this was slooow..)). > > > > Shouldn't I open a ticket on this ? > > It would be best to open a ticket. > > > Hints on further relevant information ? > > IMHO, the way Sage calls Mathematica is not optimal. I recall opening > a ticket before, when Sage would not work with my version of > Mathematica. It turns out that the optional interfaces like > Mathematica were not tested regularly - I don't know if that has > changed. > > If you look at this post a month or so by me: > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/sage-devel/mathematica$20kirkby/sage-devel/tF5QApfHUHE/3FRgjYrg1QsJ > > you will see I had intended emailing something to the FSF and Wolfram > Research to try to get a better way of interfacing to Mathematica. > What responses were received from Sage developers, were negative, so I > never bothered emailing Wolfram Research or the FSF. > > Technically the best way to produce an interface will be using the > MathLink protocol in Mathematica. The issue is the license condictions > > of this. It can be used free for commerical use, but not for > commerical use. This conflicts with the GPL, though I'm not convinced > I disagree. The only reason Sage doesn't have an interface to Mathematica written using the MathLink protocol is that nobody has got around to writting such an interface. I would like to strongly encourage people to write one. As long as we *only* implement something in Sage that speaks the Mathlink *protocol*, there are no GPL issues here, since there is no binary linking between Sage and any Mathematica code. You can implement from scratch absolutely any TCP protocol you want in a GPL'd program. (I'm not talking about writing a Cython binding to a Wolfram library, but writing an implementation of the protocol directly in Python.) -- William > that could not be circulated if the interface was an optional > component, that did not by default link to the Mathematica libraries. > > There is an open-source (GPL) program called 'jmath' > > http://robotics.caltech.edu/~radford/jmath/ > > which links to Mathematica in a way that is technially better. Exactly > what the legal situation of that is, I don't know, and if you read the > authors comments, he had conflicting answers from different sources. > That was why I intended emailing the FSF and Wolfram Research. But as > I say, all comments were negative. > > Dave > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-support" group. > 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. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en. > > > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
Re: [sage-support] Mathematica interface has changed in V9 ?
On 28 December 2012 14:53, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > Note to (potential) users of the sage interface to Mathematica : something > seems to have changed in Mathematica version 9 interface with "the rest of > the world". > > Setup(s) : Debian wheezy with self-compiled sage v 5.4.1 then v 5.5, > Mathematica Linux 64 bits V8 then V9. > (1) sage v 5.4 <--> Mathematica V8 : OK > (2)sage v 5.5 <--> Mathematica V9 : doesn't work. Sage reports to be "unable > to start Mathematica". However, Mathematica works both from the command line > (math) or from the GUI (mathematica). > (3) sage v 5.5 <--> Mathematica V8 : OK again. > > I've also seen (1) and (3) on a smallish 32 bit machine (Again, debian > wheezy + self-compiled sage (this was slooow..)). > > Shouldn't I open a ticket on this ? It would be best to open a ticket. > Hints on further relevant information ? IMHO, the way Sage calls Mathematica is not optimal. I recall opening a ticket before, when Sage would not work with my version of Mathematica. It turns out that the optional interfaces like Mathematica were not tested regularly - I don't know if that has changed. If you look at this post a month or so by me: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/sage-devel/mathematica$20kirkby/sage-devel/tF5QApfHUHE/3FRgjYrg1QsJ you will see I had intended emailing something to the FSF and Wolfram Research to try to get a better way of interfacing to Mathematica. What responses were received from Sage developers, were negative, so I never bothered emailing Wolfram Research or the FSF. Technically the best way to produce an interface will be using the MathLink protocol in Mathematica. The issue is the license condictions of this. It can be used free for commerical use, but not for commerical use. This conflicts with the GPL, though I'm not convinced that could not be circulated if the interface was an optional component, that did not by default link to the Mathematica libraries. There is an open-source (GPL) program called 'jmath' http://robotics.caltech.edu/~radford/jmath/ which links to Mathematica in a way that is technially better. Exactly what the legal situation of that is, I don't know, and if you read the authors comments, he had conflicting answers from different sources. That was why I intended emailing the FSF and Wolfram Research. But as I say, all comments were negative. Dave -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
