To answer your other question. There appears to be little if any
difference between the two. ZZ_pE is just a very thin layer on top of
ZZ_pX with fixed modulus.
Bill.
On 25 Sep, 05:37, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A ZZ_pE indeed appears to be implemented as a ZZ_pX with a fixed
> ZZ_pX
A ZZ_pE indeed appears to be implemented as a ZZ_pX with a fixed
ZZ_pXModulus (used for preconditioning). So NTL does seem to manage
the preconditioning for you.
You can also do preconditioned arithmetic in ZZ_pEX, and then you are
required to manage the preconditioning again. But you probably al
Hey all,
I'm working on adding NTL's ZZ_pE (finite ring extensions of Z/p) and ZZ_pEX
(polynomials over ZZ_pE) classes to Sage.
The ZZ_pX module has facilities for doing modular arithmetic modulo a
preconditioned modulus f. How is this different from arithmetic in ZZ_pE
(or is it different at all
William Stein wrote:
>
> Incidentally, there are 194 members of sage-devel, and there
> were 756 messages posted last month.
>
In total from 2005.10.22 my count of messages is 6731.
The first from David Joyner:
>> Stay tuned: SAGE 0.8 will be released soon with some great new features.
Ja
On 9/24/07, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One of the first "rules" of managing a large open source software
> > development
> > project well is to do as much as possible in the public. For example the
> > above discussion about classes, etc., could be useful to many people,
> > es
I use this feature extensively, as do other students of the UW Math REU --
though I could rewrite my code not to use it. Simplest solution: add an
argument, "boundary_first" and it could default to False.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I noticed that the vertices()
Hi all,
I noticed that the vertices() function in the Graph class returns the
boundary vertices first. Is anyone using this feature?
It seems like this is an unnecessary expense incurred every time someone
asks for the vertices of a graph.
Thanks,
Jason
--~--~-~--~~---
On 9/24/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/24/07, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's your view of having a class to hold the [u,r,s,t], derived from
> > the abstract Group class? It could be called WeirstrassIsomorphism
> > perhaps.
>
> Group --> WierstrassIsomo
William,
While trying to build sage-2.8.5 on ia64-Linux using
gcc-4.2.1:
1. For flint-0.2.p2, I had to remove the CFLAG
option "-funroll-loops" in order to get it to build.
2. For iml-1.0.1.p8, there is some autotools problem
that I have not been able to track down. Is
everything up-to-date w
On 9/24/07, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's your view of having a class to hold the [u,r,s,t], derived from
> the abstract Group class? It could be called WeirstrassIsomorphism
> perhaps.
Group --> WierstrassIsomorphismGroup
GroupElement --> WeierstrassIsomorphism
> I'll have
On 9/24/07, didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some build notes:
> - Singular needs "-lcurses" whenever "-lreadline" is specified. Using
> it from the console still fails for me.
Thanks.
> - clisp won't build but I noticed that blastwave.org has a binary
> version 2.39 so I installed
On 9/24/07, Gonzalo Tornaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The following happens sometimes, I guess depending on timing:
Please open a new ticket about this. The solution is to
add a special control-c handler function to
devel/sage/interfaces/gp.py
that overloads the one in expect.py, and d
On 9/24/07, Gonzalo Tornaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understood the plan was to ignore the issue for the time being, and
> see how other projects react. I think this was a good idea, and I
> think it's still feasible to wait and see. The fact that GMP and GSL
That has been the plan for a l
Why not invite Brett Smith to SD6 or another SAGE meeting?
Would you like to have someone speak to your organization about GPLv3
or other GNU licensing issues? FSF Licensing Compliance Engineer
Brett Smith is happy to talk to groups about a wide variety issues.
Please contact us for details.
Us
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> I still think the con is valid--for instance I think wikipedia is
> great but certainly have a lower expectation of trust when I read
> stuff there. I think it would take a while to notice fishy entries in
> a contributors wiki too.
>
That is a good point. Some
After reading licenses all day, I'm developing a headache. All
this legal stuff! I pity my partner. She is a lawyer and so
acquainted to all "that perilous stuff which weighs upon the heart".
GPLv2 has all the advantages of being simple, but it dates from 1991.
The world has changed. So I think i
The following happens sometimes, I guess depending on timing:
sage: gp.eval('factor(2^997-1)')
[HIT CTRL-C]
Interrupting GP/PARI interpreter...
Interrupting GP/PARI interpreter...
---
Traceback (most recent call last)
[.
2007/9/24, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I like the idea of giving people edit access to a wiki when they
> become contributors, and think this should be periodically (and
> perhaps manually) copied over to a static page periodically.
+1
>
> - Robert
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~-~--~-
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> I like the idea of giving people edit access to a wiki when they
> become contributors, and think this should be periodically (and
> perhaps manually) copied over to a static page periodically.
>
> - Robert
>
+1
--~--~-~--~~-
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 9:00 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>> # Closing Tickets #
>>
>> * if you have a solution/patch attach it to the ticket and indicate
>> that there is a solution available by adding "[with patch]" to the
>> title. It might also be a good idea to reassign the
2007/9/17, didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2007/9/16, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Didier, does "sage -testall" pass on your install?
>
> Actually, I stopped at lapack due to lack of time. I'm plan to
> continue where I left things off on thursday (a little before sbd 3
> officially s
On Sep 21, 2007, at 7:31 PM, Hamptonio wrote:
> What about an intermediate solution: once someone is a contributor,
> you could give them edit access to a wiki page listing contributors,
> and then they could keep their entry current.
>
> On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Sure. I
On Sep 23, 2007, at 9:00 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> # Closing Tickets #
>
> * if you have a solution/patch attach it to the ticket and indicate
> that there is a solution available by adding "[with patch]" to the
> title. It might also be a good idea to reassign the ticket to the
> current bugfi
What's your view of having a class to hold the [u,r,s,t], derived from
the abstract Group class? It could be called WeirstrassIsomorphism
perhaps. I'll have to read up on derived classes in python since I
only know them in C++.
John
PS If a subset of sage-devel is thinking about something whic
Oops. I thought I'd read the whole thread when I wrote this, but I hadn't.
For now, I'm ok with "v2 or later".
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> Could you please elaborate on this a bit? What is it about the GPL
>>> that you don't like? If you were to contribute code to SAGE
>> Could you please elaborate on this a bit? What is it about the GPL
>> that you don't like? If you were to contribute code to SAGE, what
>> would be your ideal license?
>
> My ideal license would be MIT. I don't like the GPL in general. I read it a
> few times up to some point where I said to my
On Sep 24, 2007, at 1:31 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> Anyway, GMP has been stale for... 5 years?
Why do people keep saying that GMP is stale?
This has not been my observation at all.
There are not insignificant performance differences between even a
fairly recent version (like 4.1.4) and t
On 9/24/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I contributed under that assumption. I don't like GPL v2 or later, I
> > might be closer to GPL v2 or v3 than that. Overall, I agree with
> > Joel's comments earlier in this thread.
>
> Wait, are you saying that you would not allow your co
On 9/24/07, Gonzalo Tornaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > These are the people that both contributed code to the core library and
> > took the time to actually explicitly put their names as copyright holders
> > on files (in most cases this means they were the first to create the given
> > file)
On 9/24/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding (1), I'll define the copyright holders of the Sage *library*
> to be the names
> listed in the output of the following command (with some slight
> editing, e.g., since
> copyright statements for octave are in doctests):
>
> $ cd
On 9/24/07, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sure you are right but doing that on my own (and in the next day
> or two) is beyond my sage/python capabilities... to start with (and
> as these isomorphisms of Weierstrass models are so much simpler than
> more general isogenies) I was g
> It could be fun, because you could write a replacement to GMP that
> records all arithmetic operations that are done using GMP, then link
> Maple against it and see what Maple is doing... :-)
>
Well, if you really want to know just hook a couple logging functions
in the gmp lib and you are don
I had an alpha/OSF for 5 years until March 2004; by then it was
essentially the only such machine running Magma in the world with one
exception being the machine they built Magma on for me. I think they
were relieved when it went...
John
On 9/24/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On S
On Sep 24, 5:22 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OK, I hadn't read section 9 of the GPL. So now I agree with you that
> > Pari doesn't need to do anything. Excellent.
>
> :-)
>
> > So basically all the new lines of SAGE code wo
On 9/24/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I hadn't read section 9 of the GPL. So now I agree with you that
> Pari doesn't need to do anything. Excellent.
:-)
> So basically all the new lines of SAGE code would be a library, which
> can be linked against other libraries, and would be
OK, I hadn't read section 9 of the GPL. So now I agree with you that
Pari doesn't need to do anything. Excellent.
So basically all the new lines of SAGE code would be a library, which
can be linked against other libraries, and would be v2 or later.
The SAGE tarball, that contains everything, inc
Hello,
Thank you for all this licensing discussion. Given our resources, it seems
to me that the only viable option is as follows:
(1) Get permission to relicense the Sage library under "GPL v2 or later",
(2) Remove anything from Sage that doesn't switch to "GPL v2 or
later" within some
On 9/24/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 1:30 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/24/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Jason Martin wrote:
> > > > My vote would be to change the sage license to "GPLv2 or later" and
> > > > try to get the Singula
On 9/23/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think these issues are simple.
>
> Interestingly, Magma will not be able to use GMP under LGPLv3 as a
> statically linked library, since as a combined work it must satisfy
> section 4d of the LGPLv3, which excludes distributing a binary al
On Sep 24, 1:30 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jason Martin wrote:
> > > My vote would be to change the sage license to "GPLv2 or later" and
> > > try to get the Singular developers to do likewise. Mainly because
> > >
On Sep 23, 7:54 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> >>http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq
> >> which has a nice matrix showing what is legal to combine.
>
> > This table very clearly says that a GPL v2 project cannot link in an
> > LGPL v3
David Joyner wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jason Martin wrote:
>>> My vote would be to change the sage license to "GPLv2 or later" and
>>> try to get the Singular developers to do likewise. Mainly because
>>> that is less work.
>>>
>>> Does changing Sage to "v2 or
William Stein wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sunday 23 September 2007 15:46, William Stein wrote:
>> I very much do not like the blanket "or later version" scheme for dealing
>> with
>> the GPL. This, to me, gives the FSF a blank check for whatever in GPLv4
On 9/24/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jason Martin wrote:
> > My vote would be to change the sage license to "GPLv2 or later" and
> > try to get the Singular developers to do likewise. Mainly because
> > that is less work.
> >
> > Does changing Sage to "v2 or later" require Sage t
Jason Martin wrote:
> My vote would be to change the sage license to "GPLv2 or later" and
> try to get the Singular developers to do likewise. Mainly because
> that is less work.
>
> Does changing Sage to "v2 or later" require Sage to adopted future GPL
> changes? My interpretation is that it s
Thanks -- All this week (off and on) is ok, and I expect that my
afternoons will be your mornings, my evenings your afternoons. For
the 3 weeks after this I'll be much harder to get hold of.
John
On 9/24/07, David Roe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
> At the end of the spring I began working
John,
At the end of the spring I began working on porting your Magma code
implementing Tate's algorithm for elliptic curves and p-adic heights to
Sage. I made a lot of progress, but discovered that I needed to write a few
new classes for elliptic curves over number fields. It sounds like some of
David,
I'm sure you are right but doing that on my own (and in the next day
or two) is beyond my sage/python capabilities... to start with (and
as these isomorphisms of Weierstrass models are so much simpler than
more general isogenies) I was going to be much more simple-minded and
just have a l
48 matches
Mail list logo
