On Oct 27, 1:57 am, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jaap Spies wrote:
Hello Jaap,
>
> > Actually I'm running dance(10) now on my machine and I hope there will be no
> > segfaults, because I simplified the code. It will take less than 3.5 hours
> > to finish.
>
> Sorry, my hope was idl
Sigh. I also made that change (but my padics code is probably not ready to
merge). I'll just merge my code with yours.
David
On 10/26/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/26/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sage: N = 5^1000
> > sage: R = Integers(N)
> > sage: S
On 10/26/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sage: N = 5^1000
> sage: R = Integers(N)
> sage: S. = PolynomialRing(R)
> sage: v = R(37)
> sage: f = S([v])
>
> Am I correct in saying that with the current codebase, the last line
> in the above code is converting v to a ZZ_pX via a decimal
sage: N = 5^1000
sage: R = Integers(N)
sage: S. = PolynomialRing(R)
sage: v = R(37)
sage: f = S([v])
Am I correct in saying that with the current codebase, the last line
in the above code is converting v to a ZZ_pX via a decimal string?
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~-
On 10/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > which produces a nested list. Is there a way to flatten the list by one
> > or two levels, but not flatten it all the way? Something like:
> >
> > sage: flatten([[[1,2],[3,4]],[[5,6],[7,8]]],1)
> > [[1,2],[3,4],[5,6],[7,8]]
An easy w
On Oct 25, 2007, at 9:35 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>>> Carl Witty was also wondering whether your new Cython.spkg was ready
>>> for 2.8.10 or if we should wait.
>>
>> I believe so, it compiles all of SAGE and passes all doctests. Stefan
>> (the other main Cython guy) is having trouble getting his code
Jaap Spies wrote:
>
> Actually I'm running dance(10) now on my machine and I hope there will be no
> segfaults, because I simplified the code. It will take less than 3.5 hours to
> finish.
>
Sorry, my hope was idle: same error!!
Jaap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To
> P.S. On a different note, my real code has something like:
>
> sage: [solve([eq1,eq2,eq3,p==i],p,q,x,y) for i in [1..4]]
>
> which produces a nested list. Is there a way to flatten the list by one
> or two levels, but not flatten it all the way? Something like:
>
> sage: flatten([[[1,2],[3,4]]
I'm trying to numerically solve a system of equations. Currently I have:
sage: var('x y p q')
sage: eq1 = p+q==9
sage: eq2 = q*y+p*x==-6
sage: eq3 = q*y^2+p*x^2==24
sage: solve([eq1,eq2,eq3,p==1],p,q,x,y)
[[p == 3, q == 6, x == (-2*sqrt(10) - 2)/3, y == (sqrt(2)*sqrt(5) -
2)/3], [p == 3, q == 6
On 26 Okt., 18:30, "didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/10/26, Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
Ok, here an example. Lets take a polynomial over
F:=GF(nextprime(2**42)) in two variables x and y and a maximum total
degree of 3.
>
> > 1) Polynomial with max number of monomial. We
If your class has a total order, just override __cmp__. To define
partial orders, one needs to override _eq_, etc. separately for
python classes, and richcmp for Cython classes.
- Robert
On Oct 26, 2007, at 3:04 PM, didier deshommes wrote:
> 2007/10/26, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello Jaap,
>
> I assume you care about the following (computed on sage.math):
>
> sage: dance(11)
> h^11 - 44*h^10 + 1045*h^9 - 16500*h^8 + 187935*h^7 - 1595748*h^6 +
> 10199343*h^5 - 48691500*h^4 + 169140180*h^3 - 405230320*h^2 +
> 600311624*h - 415232800
>
Whow! This is gr
2007/10/26, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have some questions about Python comparison. Suppose I have a Python
> class representing objects under some ordering, and I want to
> implement <=, <, >=, >, ==, != comparisons on those objects. I
> remember hearing somewhere that the __cmp__ met
Hello Jaap,
I assume you care about the following (computed on sage.math):
sage: dance(11)
h^11 - 44*h^10 + 1045*h^9 - 16500*h^8 + 187935*h^7 - 1595748*h^6 +
10199343*h^5 - 48691500*h^4 + 169140180*h^3 - 405230320*h^2 +
600311624*h - 415232800
I am currently computing dance(12) on sage.math. Wi
Hello all,
I have some questions about Python comparison. Suppose I have a Python
class representing objects under some ordering, and I want to
implement <=, <, >=, >, ==, != comparisons on those objects. I
remember hearing somewhere that the __cmp__ method was deprecated, but
now that I am think
I use foiltex too. If you add
\usepackage[nomarkers]{pause}
at the top then they go away!
John
On 26/10/2007, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Will suggested that I forward along the notes from my talk in the MIT
> number theory seminar yesterday. It gives my exper
Well SD6 should be one long party!
John
On 26/10/2007, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 26, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>
> > Justin C. Walker wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>> So William gets a free copy of SAGE (congratulations!) and gets to
> >>> fix this
> >>> bug:
> >>>
>
Hi everyone,
Will suggested that I forward along the notes from my talk in the MIT
number theory seminar yesterday. It gives my experience trying to
enumerate totally real number fields, and compares Magma, Pari, and
SAGE for my specific problem.
http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~voight/totallyreal_mi
> Mike, your code had a subtle bug, where
> random_monomials(n,degree,terms) failed each time for degree =1 (but
> was fine for degree=0).
Yeah, I knew that when I wrote it -- it was just something quick that
I wrote up. The degree 1 case is trivial to handle though.
--Mike
--~--~-~--~
On Oct 26, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Justin C. Walker wrote:
>>
>
>>> So William gets a free copy of SAGE (congratulations!) and gets to
>>> fix this
>>> bug:
>>>
>>> "Sage does not have 1 users yet."
>>>
>>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1000
>>
>> Well, he's cer
Justin C. Walker wrote:
>
>> So William gets a free copy of SAGE (congratulations!) and gets to
>> fix this
>> bug:
>>
>> "Sage does not have 1 users yet."
>>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1000
>
> Well, he's certainly earned it.
>
Kind of celebrating! That reminds me
On Oct 26, 2007, at 05:43 , Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> On Thursday 25 October 2007, William Stein wrote:
>> On 10/25/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Does the lucky bug reporter get a prize?
>>
>> Of course. The person who reports bug 1000 gets a *free copy of
>> Sage*!
>
> So
2007/10/26, Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 1) Polynomial with max number of monomial. We dont need to worry about
> that case, since here all the monomial are chosen, that means actually
> there is nothing to choose. So this will be efficient anyway.
> 2) A user wants an exact < totalmax number of
On Thursday 25 October 2007, William Stein wrote:
> On 10/25/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does the lucky bug reporter get a prize?
>
> Of course. The person who reports bug 1000 gets a *free copy of Sage*!
So William gets a free copy of SAGE (congratulations!) and gets to fix
On 26 Okt., 00:48, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> > On Friday 26 October 2007, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> This is an interesting construction, but I am wondering if a uniform
> >> distribution for all polynomials of specified
25 matches
Mail list logo
