Hi,
I'm attempting to get SAGE-2.2 ready for release today. The list
of things that need to be done is given here:
http://sage.math.washington.edu:9002/sage_trac/milestone/sage-2.2
If anybody is interested in helping out, let me know. Unfortunately, not
too much of the work can be
Is this the right mail list? or is the bug tracker wiki better? Too
many options leads to too-many-options-itis.
packages in 2.1.4 have been superceeded:
libpng-1.2-8.p0.spkg is out of date
libpng-1.2.16 see http://libpng.org/pub/png/pngcode.html
bzip 1.0.3 now bzip 1.0.4 http://bzip.org
On 2/26/07, carl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this the right mail list? or is the bug tracker wiki better? Too
many options leads to too-many-options-itis.
packages in 2.1.4 have been superceeded:
libpng-1.2-8.p0.spkg is out of date
libpng-1.2.16 see
William,
How's this coming? I'm almost done with inline functions and
cdef int a = 5
in SageX, and would like to see them in this release (so I can start
using them in my code).
- Robert
On Feb 26, 2007, at 9:07 AM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
I'm attempting to get SAGE-2.2 ready for
On 2/26/07, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How's this coming? I'm almost done with inline functions and
cdef int a = 5
in SageX, and would like to see them in this release (so I can start
using them in my code).
Progress is steady. However, I will wait until tomorrow night to
Here are some timings of quaddouble vs mpfr. All test were ran on
sage.math. In short: quaddouble is faster than M=mpfr at 212 bits of
precision on all functions special, except on atanh() and asinh().
The format is as follows:
{{{
function:
quaddouble time
mprf time
}}}
Here are the timings:
Shouldn't the error on a quad double be way smaller than this? I'm
not sure what specific numbers you're operating on, but if your
answers are on the order of 10^0, then shouldn't you have around 63
decimal digits of accuracy, rather than just 4 more orders of
magnitude? Wouldn't an error
