Hello folks,
this is alpha0 of the Sage 2.10.3 release series. So far 30
tickets have been closed and the plan is to get a bug fix
only release out before Sage Days 8. Right now I want to
do one release candidate in about 36 to 48 hours before
starting on the final release. As usual, things might
On Feb 26, 8:04 am, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should work on a wiki page with project ideas (assuming that Sage
> will be accepted for SoC).
+1 see http://wiki.sagemath.org/GSoCSuggestions
> --Mike
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To p
We should work on a wiki page with project ideas (assuming that Sage
will be accepted for SoC).
--Mike
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:47 PM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 6:45 am, Dan Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/2
On Feb 26, 6:45 am, Dan Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/26/0134235
>
> Sage totally needs to get in on this! I figure Sage is far more worthy
> than, say, Irssi [1]. :)
:)
We are on it - but input is always welcome.
Cheers,
Michael
> Da
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/26/0134235
Sage totally needs to get in on this! I figure Sage is far more worthy
than, say, Irssi [1]. :)
Dan
1. http://irssi.org/soc
--
--- Dan Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- KAIST Department of Mathematical Sciences
--- http://mat
On Feb 26, 6:09 am, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got the same error message. I installed 2.10.2 fresh on a Ubuntu
> x64, and after applying a patch and attempting to compile, it gave me
> the error.
>
> JV
Hi John,
apply the patch from #2180 and the issue should be fixed in your
I got the same error message. I installed 2.10.2 fresh on a Ubuntu
x64, and after applying a patch and attempting to compile, it gave me
the error.
JV
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this g
On Feb 25, 9:53 pm, philt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In between the upgrade to 2.10.1 did you change anything like the gcc
> > version?
>
> No
>
> > #define __LINBOX_CONFIGURATION
> > #include "linbox/config-blas.h"
> > int main ()
> > {
> > double a;
> > return 0;
>
> > }
>
> > If that wo
On Feb 25, 8:54 pm, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My upgrade to 2.10.2 failed on an Intel mac running OS X 10.4.11.
>
> The end of the log looks like:
>
> making xdr.d from xdr.c
> making xdr_float.d from xdr_float.c
> making xdr_mem.d from xdr_mem.c
> making xdr_stdio.d from xdr_stdio.c
> In between the upgrade to 2.10.1 did you change anything like the gcc
> version?
No
> #define __LINBOX_CONFIGURATION
> #include "linbox/config-blas.h"
> int main ()
> {
> double a;
> return 0;
>
> }
>
> If that work we have a problem somewhere, if it doesn't work something
> it wrong with yo
My upgrade to 2.10.2 failed on an Intel mac running OS X 10.4.11.
The end of the log looks like:
making xdr.d from xdr.c
making xdr_float.d from xdr_float.c
making xdr_mem.d from xdr_mem.c
making xdr_stdio.d from xdr_stdio.c
gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -no-cpp-precomp -I. -I../../../src/include -
I../../
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It might be. I don't like the time function as it is written now,
> > since it's
> > done with the preparser and doesn't work when it isn't the first
> > thing on
> > a line, which is annoying.
> >
> > sage:
> I would also suggest to go that way since we can then merge the ticket
> dependent on it. Once we have the correctly, but not blazingly fast
> version in Sage we can always switch to the C++ version as it is
> convenient for the integrators.
+1 -- all those lovely doctests will not go to waste
> It might be. I don't like the time function as it is written now,
> since it's
> done with the preparser and doesn't work when it isn't the first
> thing on
> a line, which is annoying.
>
> sage: 2 + 2; time 2 + 2
>
>File "",
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday 25 February 2008 10:56, William Stein wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I just noticed that the timeit short-cut seems more
On Monday 25 February 2008 10:56, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just noticed that the timeit short-cut seems more broken than normal
> > (at least I think this worked previous to 2.10.2:
> > sage: R.=ZZ[]
> >
On Feb 25, 2008, at 6:13 AM, David Harvey wrote:
>
> Currently in sage.rings.polynomial we have the following class
> hierarchy:
>
> Polynomial
> Polynomial_dense_modn
> Polynomial_dense_modn_ntl_zz
> Polynomial_dense_modn_ntl_ZZ
> Polynomial_dense_modp
>
> The imp
On Feb 25, 11:07 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Carlo Hamalainen wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Dirty, William. I can't believe you blame this on me -- that was all
> >> Robert's fault. Anyway. I've co-opted Ajanki's framewo
Hello folks,
I have started merging for 2.10.3.alpha0 for the last day or so, but
now I have run out of things to merge. The tickets with positive
review usually depend on things which have not been reviewed yet. So
if you have some time come one over to trac and review some tickets.
There are pl
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:57 AM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 25, 4:49 pm, "Joel B. Mohler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just noticed that the timeit short-cut seems more broken than normal (at
> > least I think this worked previous to 2.10.2:
> > sage:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 4:57 PM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 25, 4:49 pm, "Joel B. Mohler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just noticed that the timeit short-cut seems more broken than normal (at
> > least I think this worked previous to 2.10.2:
> > sage:
On Feb 25, 4:49 pm, "Joel B. Mohler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that the timeit short-cut seems more broken than normal (at
> least I think this worked previous to 2.10.2:
> sage: R.=ZZ[]
> sage: f=x^2-1
> sage: timeit f.factor()
> ---
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that the timeit short-cut seems more broken than normal (at
> least I think this worked previous to 2.10.2:
> sage: R.=ZZ[]
> sage: f=x^2-1
> sage: timeit f.factor()
> -
If you would like a full description of octonion algebra, I suggest
you visit my web site and pull the PDF file. www.octospace.com
I know nothing about Sage, can't help you there.
Rick
On Feb 16, 7:51 pm, Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Drechsel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
Hi,
I just noticed that the timeit short-cut seems more broken than normal (at
least I think this worked previous to 2.10.2:
sage: R.=ZZ[]
sage: f=x^2-1
sage: timeit f.factor()
File "", line 1
timeit f.factor()
^
:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:01 AM, didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:24 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm actually pretty curious about how pexpect and XMLRPC both
> > done locally compare speedwise. I've done some simple benchmarks
>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:24 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm actually pretty curious about how pexpect and XMLRPC both
> done locally compare speedwise. I've done some simple benchmarks
> below. The short answer is that pexpect is between several hundred
> to several thous
Currently in sage.rings.polynomial we have the following class
hierarchy:
Polynomial
Polynomial_dense_modn
Polynomial_dense_modn_ntl_zz
Polynomial_dense_modn_ntl_ZZ
Polynomial_dense_modp
The implementations are via some weird combination of direct NTL
access a
Hi Jon,
Your best bet is to use the interval arithmetic in Sage since it will
give you proveable intervals for your results. Here's an example of
how to use it:
sage: CIF = ComplexIntervalField(20)
sage: A = random_matrix(CIF, 3, 3)
sage: b = vector([1,1,1])
sage: A \ b
([-1.039 .. -0.9
Hi,
I am interested in being able to find a numerical solution of a matrix
system of linear equations Ax=b, where A is a matrix (and b is a
vector) over ComplexField(prec), of a specified precision prec. The
important thing is to know the level of accuracy of the resulting
solution vector x. (H
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Carlo Hamalainen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dirty, William. I can't believe you blame this on me -- that was all
>> Robert's fault. Anyway. I've co-opted Ajanki's framework, and have
>> rewritten the core of the search algor
31 matches
Mail list logo
