On Apr 27, 6:43 am, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Francois,
> Sorry You answered me while I was posting further comment.
> I don't have an account on the bug tracker.
ok, #3041 it is in case you want to review it :)
> Francois
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~-
On Apr 27, 6:39 am, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, looking at the patches included I found that the
> commentator.C file is already patched, i.e. the file shipped in
> the spkg is not the upstream file but the file from the patch
> folder.
Yes, I know, but we are for all pra
Sorry You answered me while I was posting further comment.
I don't have an account on the bug tracker.
Francois
On Apr 27, 4:36 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 6:32 am, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Francois,
>
> > Just reviewing what options linbox
Furthermore, looking at the patches included I found that the
commentator.C file is already patched, i.e. the file shipped in
the spkg is not the upstream file but the file from the patch
folder.
Cheers,
Francois
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send em
On Apr 27, 6:32 am, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Francois,
> Just reviewing what options linbox is compiled with for sage,
> well I was really looking at whether optimizations are enabled.
> In theory they are, except on Sun:
> if [ $UNAME = "SunOS" ]; then
> OPT="--enable-optimizat
Just reviewing what options linbox is compiled with for sage,
well I was really looking at whether optimizations are enabled.
In theory they are, except on Sun:
if [ $UNAME = "SunOS" ]; then
OPT="--enable-optimization=false"
echo "Building on SunOS"
else
OPT="--enable-optimization"
fi
Of
Robert Dodier wrote:
> Hello,
Hi,
> I have gotten Maxima (current CVS head + ECL-specific changes)
> compiled by ECL (current CVS head, release 0.9j won't work).
> I committed the ECL-specific stuff on the branch patches-for-ecl-branch
> in Maxima CVS. I merged in a patch posted by Michael Goffi
Hello,
I have gotten Maxima (current CVS head + ECL-specific changes)
compiled by ECL (current CVS head, release 0.9j won't work).
I committed the ECL-specific stuff on the branch patches-for-ecl-branch
in Maxima CVS. I merged in a patch posted by Michael Goffioul in 2005
and some stuff I did a f
On Apr 27, 2:57 am, Timothy G Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I seem to have two major problems with my SAGE 3.0alpha6 Debian packages.
> One seems to be difficulty finding the expanded executable for singular,
> and the other seems to be a double free somewhere in linbox.
I have an idea wh
I seem to have two major problems with my SAGE 3.0alpha6 Debian packages.
One seems to be difficulty finding the expanded executable for singular,
and the other seems to be a double free somewhere in linbox.
Do either of these sound familiar?
-Tim Abbott
// ***dError: Bug reported: Co
On Apr 27, 1:24 am, "Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Robert Bradshaw
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Timothy G Abbott wrote:
>
> > > Hello,
>
> > > I'm working on building SAGE 3.0 for Debian, but ran into a cytho
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 25, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Timothy G Abbott wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm working on building SAGE 3.0 for Debian, but ran into a cython
> > problem
> > (error message below):
> >
> > I'm guessing the p
Yes, that's the direction I was going but was also wondering about
characters of tori.
Also, has induction/restriction been implemented?
On 4/26/08, Daniel Bump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > This looks really awesome Dan. It's really great you are working on this.
> > Is there any functiona
> This looks really awesome Dan. It's really great you are working on this.
> Is there any functionality planned for products of GL(1)'s (for example)?
I think you're asking about branching to products,
like GL(4) to the Levi GL(2)xGL(2), i.e. A3->A1xA1.
This is clearly needed. Maybe we need to
Sorry to jump in late; I just found this discussion by googling
something else..
Maxima was berated for being too slow in factoring this..
-p10^170*X1^10*X2^10+p10^130*X1^5*X2^10+p10^130*X1^10*X2^5-
p10^90*X1^5*X2^5+p10^80*X1^5*X2^5-p10^40*X2^5-p10^40*X1^5+1
which apparently did not terminate
This looks really awesome Dan. It's really great you are working on this.
Is there any functionality planned for products of GL(1)'s (for example)?
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Bump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I have implemented some tools for working with characters of Lie
> gr
I'm going. Robert Miller and I are doing a poster on SAGE and coding theory.
I'll submit it tomorrow or Monday.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:49 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Emil Volcheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello, William,
> >
> >
I have implemented some tools for working with characters of Lie
groups in Sage. I intend to make a trac ticket for this, but
first I posted in sage-combinat-devel for comment. I'm linking
here to that post for people here interested in Lie groups. A
a link to the patch and a description may be f
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Emil Volcheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, William,
>
> Do you know whether anyone affilated with the SAGE effort
> will be attending ECCAD?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Emil
I don't know if anybody will be. I've cc'd this response to sage-devel,
so if somebody
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Kiran Kedlaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is the strategy to work multimodularly using completely split primes?
> Or does someone have a better idea?
>
Here's an IRC chat:
12:17 < wstein> btw, I thought a bit about cyclotomic linear algebra.
12:17 < craigcit
I'm interested too, though in terms of Sage related work in the near
term I want to finally push this coercion stuff in.
On Apr 25, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Craig Citro wrote:
>
> I'm in.
>
> -cc
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, Apr 2
On Saturday 26 April 2008, John Cremona wrote:
> Am I right in thinking that this is in Sage?
>
> John
Just for the archives: Yes, it is in Sage too:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2424
But as Pari has it too it seems we could just call that and be done.
Martin
--
name: Martin
2008/4/26 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> On Apr 26, 11:57 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
> > Am I right in thinking that this is in Sage?
>
> Yes, I saw the email on the pari user's list and thought the same
> thing. IIRC this was implemented by Martin A
On Apr 26, 11:57 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi John,
> Am I right in thinking that this is in Sage?
Yes, I saw the email on the pari user's list and thought the same
thing. IIRC this was implemented by Martin Albrecht in Sage 2.11:
* Small roots method for polynomials mod
Am I right in thinking that this is in Sage?
John
-- Forwarded message --
From: Max Alekseyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2008/4/26
Subject: Coppersmith's small root finding for modular polynomials
To: pari-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello!
I wonder whether Don Coppersmith's me
2008/4/26 Kiran Kedlaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Is the strategy to work multimodularly using completely split primes?
That is the way I always assumed this would be done. But there may be
other possibilities?
John
> Or does someone have a better idea?
>
> Kiran
>
>
> On Apr 25, 5:46 pm, "
Hello folks,
this is 3.0.1.alpha0. So far we have only merged bugfixes,
nothing invasive so far. 24 tickets have been closed so far
and I am not quite sure what the rest of the release cycle
will look like because it currently doesn't look like we
need a pure bug fix only release.
There are plen
27 matches
Mail list logo
