>> test-support.o: In function `__gmpz_fits_uint_p':
>> test-support.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of
>> `__gmpz_fits_uint_p'
>> Z_mpn-test.o:Z_mpn-test.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
>> test-support.o: In function `__gmpz_fits_ulong_p':
>>
>> Here is the end of the install.log
>>
>> ZmodF
On 9/27/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Glad you're enjoying SAGE.
>
> Flint is a new experimental package that isn't yet used in SAGE (but
> will be soon we hope, as soon as the library matures a bit more and
> stabilizes). You should be able to proceed by touching sage/spkg/
>
Update- interestingly, using the newer gmp-4.2.2 solved some of the
problems I was experiencing, and I got
everything to compile without the --with-pic or copying over any
header files.
The only thing I had to take care of was to add -m64 option as
I described earlier when compiling mpfrcpp.
I
Glad you're enjoying SAGE.
Flint is a new experimental package that isn't yet used in SAGE (but
will be soon we hope, as soon as the library matures a bit more and
stabilizes). You should be able to proceed by touching sage/spkg/
installed/flint-0.2.p2 and then running sage -upgrade again, a
On 9/27/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with your caution, but don't see how the examples above mess
> anything up. If an object B wants to pretend to be immutable, it
> merely has to check that nothing points to it before mutating itself
> (and, in mutating itself, don't
I first heard about SAGE on UWTV and was very impressed. I finally
downloaded the 2.8.5 binary, started on the tutorial and was much
further impressed!!
I have trouble compiling both SAGE-2.8.5 and SAGE-2.8.5.1 from the
source:
My computer: Dell 490
My operating system:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> u
Well, I don't want to take the thread off topic, but in the standard
(documented) way of creating new operators, it is done with an
assignment to MakeExpression. This will work in a notebook, where
boxes are transformed into expressions before execution, but it will
not work in a .m file, because
On Sep 27, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> The problematic issue is that some extensions (numpy first and
> foremost, but this buffer API is going into the core of the language
> for 2.6/3.0) allow multiple, distinct *python objects* to share the
> same (or parts of the same) chunk of r
Robert Miller wrote:
>> The best I've come up with at this point is, given graphs A,B,C,D,E, the
>> union is:
>>
>> A.union(B).union(C).union(D).union(E)
>>
>> where the union function returns the modified graph each time so I can
>> keep chaining union function calls. The union actually modifies
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>
>> Jaap Spies wrote:
>>
>>> But most of SAGE is still Python, so I stick to the more Pythonic
>>> alternative!
>>>
>>> As a better name for irange I suggest now inrange, maybe that is more
>>> intelligible:
>>>
>>> sage:
On 9/27/07, Fernando Perez wrote:
> ...
> In [12]: a = N.arange(10)
>
> In [13]: sys.getrefcount(a)
> Out[13]: 2
>
> Here the refcount is 2, as expected: the original array and the name
> 'a' pointing to it.
>
> Now, a naked, unassigned slice of the original array has a refcount of 1:
>
> In [14]:
On 9/27/07, Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/07, Fernando Perez wrote:
> >
> > On 9/27/07, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >
> > > You have a good point, though fortunately we're looking for refcounts
> > > so low that (essentially) nothing else can be holding onto it but the
> > > curren
On 9/27/07, Fernando Perez wrote:
>
> On 9/27/07, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> > You have a good point, though fortunately we're looking for refcounts
> > so low that (essentially) nothing else can be holding onto it but the
> > current stack frame. If b is pointing to a, it doesn't matter how
> > m
> The best I've come up with at this point is, given graphs A,B,C,D,E, the
> union is:
>
> A.union(B).union(C).union(D).union(E)
>
> where the union function returns the modified graph each time so I can
> keep chaining union function calls. The union actually modifies the
> graph A, so if you wa
On Sep 27, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>>> A=A.union(B)
>>>
>>> to modify A?
>>
>> Yes. Or even
>>
>> A.inplace_union(B)
>>
>> (or some better name than that) which returns nothing. Otherwise, for
>> example, e
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> A=A.union(B)
>>
>> to modify A?
>
> Yes. Or even
>
> A.inplace_union(B)
>
> (or some better name than that) which returns nothing. Otherwise, for
> example, every function that received a graph as an argument wou
Jason Grout wrote:
> Mike Hansen wrote:
>> Of all the code I've read in lots of different languages, I think code
>> written for Mathematica has been the least transparent.
>
> I guess I've always loved functional languages, so the simple core
> principles appealed to me right away.
See a thread
On 9/27/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You have a good point, though fortunately we're looking for refcounts
> so low that (essentially) nothing else can be holding onto it but the
> current stack frame. If b is pointing to a, it doesn't matter how
> many other things are (direc
On Sep 27, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There is another very relevant thread started by Robert Bradshaw on
>> this list concerning the safety of in-place modifications:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thre
On Sep 27, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Mike Hansen wrote:
>>> The best I've come up with at this point is, given graphs
>>> A,B,C,D,E, the
>>> union is:
>>>
>>> A.union(B).union(C).union(D).union(E)
>>>
>>> where the union function returns the modified graph each time so
>>> I can
On 9/27/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * FYI: Maple also uses GMP. I don't think Mathematica does (based on
> > my limited testing showing it to be slower at integer arithmetic).
> >
>
> The other day I attended a training session on Mathematica and the
> Wolfram representative sp
Hi all,
I know everyone is fed up with licensing discussions, but this will be
brief, and meant just to provide a resource, not to stir up any more
noise.
The Software Freedom Law Center, a legal pro-bono organization, has
just released a very useful document providing guidelines for how GPL
pro
William Stein wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Georg Muntingh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Monday I will give an introductory talk about SAGE for the algebra
>> group in Oslo. The contents of the presentation can be found at
>> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df56gnzv_15cp38pw , and the slides can
>> be fou
Hi,
Nice visuals. I will be giving several intro-to-sage talks in the
coming months, so if you don't mind I might recycle some of your
presentation ideas.
I recommend including a nice 3D screenshot using Tachyon, maybe using
graphs. I think tachyon is currently somewhat under-exploited
curren
>
> Thoughts or comments? Is there an official convention for these things?
>
The Axiom library uses the conventions you associate with Lisp of !
and ? name-endings for functions (methods) which modify an object in
place and functions which return boolean values, respectively.
Personally I don'
On 9/27/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In another thread ("making new infix operators",
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/a27ae5012d3754f5
> ), we evolved into a discussion of conventions for methods in SAGE.
> I'll try to summarize and ask questions ab
Thank you for the summary.
GAP also has conventions, though I don't know how official they
are. Typically a boolean response starts with "Is" (as is "IsAbelainGroup")
and an in-place modification has the work "Mutable" in the
command name somewhere.
On 9/27/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On 9/27/07, Georg Muntingh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday I will give an introductory talk about SAGE for the algebra
> group in Oslo. The contents of the presentation can be found at
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df56gnzv_15cp38pw , and the slides can
> be found at http://folk.uio.no/ge
In another thread ("making new infix operators",
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/a27ae5012d3754f5
), we evolved into a discussion of conventions for methods in SAGE.
I'll try to summarize and ask questions about this general subject here.
First, I think it's imp
Hi everybody,
On Monday I will give an introductory talk about SAGE for the algebra
group in Oslo. The contents of the presentation can be found at
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df56gnzv_15cp38pw , and the slides can
be found at http://folk.uio.no/georgmu/SAGE.pdf . Any feedback would
be greatly
I disagree. Maybe its because I grew up learning BASIC, but in-place
modification generally confuses and annoys me. Here's an example that
I think illustrates one of my issues:
Code version A:
a = something
b = [a,something_else]
c = a.a_method()
important_result(b)
Code version B:
a = somethin
On 9/27/07, Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is another very relevant thread started by Robert Bradshaw on
> this list concerning the safety of in-place modifications:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/806cd958eb28ac3b/46655d7572d11ee6?#46655d7572d11e
On 9/27/07, Jason Grout wrote:
> ...
> >
> >> where the union function returns the modified graph each time so I can
> >> keep chaining union function calls. The union actually modifies the
> >> graph A, so if you want A left alone and a new graph returned, you do:
> >>
> >> newgraph=A.copy().uni
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> As for graphs, there isn't a standard definition for the "+" operation
>> that is agreed upon, even for graphs of the same type (e.g., should it
>> be disjoint union or union?). That's why I was asking about custom
>>
Chris Chiasson wrote:
> It might be worth pointing out that adding "new" syntax in Mathematica
> is (usually) done by assignments to the function that transforms
> general two dimensional input into source code. That isn't really the
> same thing as adding a new operator to the language itself.
A
Craig Citro wrote:
>>> The best I've come up with at this point is, given graphs
>>> A,B,C,D,E, the
>>> union is:
>>>
>>> A.union(B).union(C).union(D).union(E)
>> I actually think that this looks very clear, despite the lack of
>> infix operators.
>>
>
> I agree -- especially since it looks like
Mike Hansen wrote:
>> The best I've come up with at this point is, given graphs A,B,C,D,E, the
>> union is:
>>
>> A.union(B).union(C).union(D).union(E)
>>
>> where the union function returns the modified graph each time so I can
>> keep chaining union function calls. The union actually modifies t
Hello Michael,
On Sep 27, 3:23 am, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I managed to get gmp, mpfr, and mpfrcpp to compile and link
> successfully.
> It took a bit of effort to get it working, so I thought I'd record my
> settings here in case
> other people find them useful
>
> machine: G5 power
38 matches
Mail list logo
