+1 from me to include Pynac/GiNaC in Sage,
Martin Albrecht asked about the Windows porting issue: I looked at the
GiNaC code and it is very clean C++. The maintainer is willing to
merge MSVC related patches where needed, i.e. export statements for
the symbols we need. I am not aware of any other
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:49 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, one important warning: ginac and sympycore are missing
assumptions and sympy only has very trivial ones, like positive,
negative, integer, even, odd, etc. This is really important for any
nontrivial things in a CAS
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:49 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, one important warning: ginac and sympycore are missing
assumptions and sympy only has very trivial ones, like positive,
negative, integer,
I think it's just about getting people to fix it. There are many
people around who can fix Python/Cython and a little less (I guess)
who can fix C++ and C. But a lot less who can fix lisp.
As I mentioned before, another big
problem is that lisp doesn't manipulate native Python objects
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:43 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:49 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, one important warning: ginac and sympycore are missing
assumptions
On Aug 25, 11:50 pm, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I think it's just about getting people to fix it. There are many
people around who can fix Python/Cython and a little less (I guess)
who can fix C++ and C. But a lot less who can fix lisp.
As I mentioned before, another
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:58 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to GPL vs BSD, I am sad that some people will not contribute to a
BSD project and some other people will not use a GPL project. But my
intuition says that the license is not the main reason. If sympy was
as fast as
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:29:33 +0200
Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:49 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, one important warning: ginac and sympycore are missing
assumptions and sympy only has very trivial ones, like positive,
negative,
On Aug 26, 2008, at 1:55 AM, William Stein wrote:
Do complain if you can't. Also, let meknow if you have trouble
installing
pynac -- it's very new (1 day old!) so installation might not just
work yet
on all Sage-supported platforms.
-- William
I managed to install pynac fine on my
On 26/08/2008, at 5:09 PM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
In[]:= Assuming[0x, Assuming[xPi/2 ,ArcCos[Cos[x
Out[]= ArcCos[Cos[x]]
In[]:= Simplify[ArcCos[Cos[x]], Assumptions - 0 x Pi/2]
Out[] = x
==
David J Philp
Postdoctoral Fellow
National Centre for Epidemiology
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:09 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if for this particular project it's a
realistic/valid/interesting solution or not, but how about using LGPL
as a middle solution?
This is not an option because Pynac derives from Ginac and Ginac
is GPL'd:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 26, 2008, at 1:55 AM, William Stein wrote:
Do complain if you can't. Also, let meknow if you have trouble
installing
pynac -- it's very new (1 day old!) so installation might not just work
yet
on all
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 25, 12:50 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Burcin -- I did actually mostly implement pattern matching in Pynac.
Some examples:
snip examples
sage: (sin(x)^2 +
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:29:33 +0200
Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:49 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, one important warning: ginac and sympycore are missing
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 25, 12:50 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Burcin -- I did actually mostly implement pattern matching in Pynac.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:10:26 -0400
Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 26, 2008, at 1:55 AM, William Stein wrote:
Do complain if you can't. Also, let meknow if you have trouble
installing
pynac -- it's very new (1 day old!) so installation might not just
work yet
on
Thanks,
I'll take a look. I'm going to be busy for a few days putting together
a revised CV so I can apply for a sessional position but I'll return
to this right afterwards.
Cheers,
Tim.
On Aug 26, 2008, at 3:22 AM, William Stein wrote:
OK, good. Again, please keep in mind that this is
Yes, the nops and the ops functions are quite important.
Using ops I can work around quite a lot of missing
functionality because I've done it before in Maple.
I'll know more as I see what ginac/pynac can do.
Thanks,
Tim.
On Aug 26, 2008, at 3:28 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
If you can provide
Well, Sage developers like Python, Cython and C while Maxima
developers like lisp (at least for the low level stuff) - so we are
having self selecting groups here. It is the best tool for the job,
but also the devil you know, so I don't see big changes here in the
future.
Let me say that I
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But did it ever happen to you Fernando that someone would plainly
abuse ipython/numpy/scipy? Clearly ipython is way more popular than
sympy, so if it doesn't happen for numpy/scipy/ipython, I don't think
we have to
An assumption framework is non-trivial as it is basically
computational
real algebraic geometry.
Recenty there was a post about QEPCAD (http://www.cs.usna.edu/~qepcad/
B/QEPCAD.html).
Perhaps this might fit the bill?
Michel
On Aug 26, 8:43 am, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon,
On Aug 26, 12:34 am, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Well, Sage developers like Python, Cython and C while Maxima
developers like lisp (at least for the low level stuff) - so we are
having self selecting groups here. It is the best tool for the job,
but also the devil you
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:47 AM, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:34 am, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Well, Sage developers like Python, Cython and C while Maxima
developers like lisp (at least for the low level stuff) - so we are
having self selecting
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:53 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:47 AM, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:34 am, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Well, Sage developers like Python, Cython and C while Maxima
developers like lisp
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An assumption framework is non-trivial as it is basically
computational
real algebraic geometry.
Recenty there was a post about QEPCAD (http://www.cs.usna.edu/~qepcad/
B/QEPCAD.html).
Perhaps this might fit the
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An assumption framework is non-trivial as it is basically
computational
real algebraic geometry.
Recenty there was a post about QEPCAD
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An assumption framework is non-trivial as it is basically
On Aug 26, 1:27 am, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
qepcad relies on an aging library saclib for the algebraic data
structures. It would be a worthwhile project to implement CAD/port
qepcad so that it
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:42:21 -0700
William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Burcin, would LGPL be suitable for you to contribute to sympy, or is
LGPL not protective enough for you?
Since Burcin's whole proposal is to use GiNaC, I suspect that he is only going
to write something if it
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:42:21 -0700
William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Burcin, would LGPL be suitable for you to contribute to sympy, or is
LGPL not protective enough for you?
Since Burcin's whole proposal is to
Even at 10 minutes with no optimization
that seriously tests my patience. And 72 minutes with
optimization is real deal breaker.
!
(c) Did you first look at the giac.info page?
I don't know what that is. However, I expect to be able
to cd to the source directory, start looking
If you can provide more examples of what you need, I could probably put
up patches wrapping that functionality fairly easily/quickly.
As a first step, I suppose you need the nops, and ops functions of
maple. These will be on the top of my todo list.
For inspiration in sympy we currently
Is the syntax for this stuff set in stone? I'm not sure I like the
equality inside the subs call. Equality is reflexive, but
substitution is a one way operation. What about a dictionary, sage: (a
+2*b).subs({a+b:x}), or even just a single equal sign, like keyword
args, sage:
This morning, I posted a mail concerning a compilation pb (unable to
find libstdc++.
The machine is an AMD64, Debian Lenny.
The system was updated for the last time near August 1.
We apt-get upgraded it, and now, compilation is ok...
So, if you use this Debian version, upgrade your system
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:46 AM, parisse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even at 10 minutes with no optimization
that seriously tests my patience. And 72 minutes with
optimization is real deal breaker.
!
I am very impatient.
(e) Perhaps. From my own experience, it is not easy to enter into a
Hi
It seems that if you are logged as a normal user, browse the published
worksheet and try to Edit a Copy, it just create a copy for user Pub
but not for the regular user.
So you can not Edit a personal copy.
Maybe somebody can confirm the bug
Philippe
PS : Sage 3.1.1
On Aug 26, 1:19 am, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An assumption framework is non-trivial as it is basically
computational
real
Hi, I want to propose a process to increase the quality of the Sage
documentation. This is the by far most annoying thing about Sage
according to the last survey. I think the userbase is already big and
willing enough to contribute more documentation. To do this in a more
coordinated way, there
I didn't find NTL that easy to use. Perhaps it depends on the code
style of the reader and writer. I had a look at singular 2 years ago,
and I did not find it easy at all (and it was not available as a
library anyway).
I didn't look at ginac recently, but I did 8 years ago when I started
I confirm this bug. This used to work. I assumed you didn't have a
trac account so I filed a bug report for you. This is now
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3960
I'm sure the developers appreciate your report (I do, but I'm not
really a developer)
On Aug 26, 10:08 am, Philippe Saade
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Nils Bruin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I confirm this bug. This used to work. I assumed you didn't have a
trac account so I filed a bug report for you. This is now
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3960
I'm sure the developers appreciate your report (I
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't find NTL that easy to use. Perhaps it depends on the code
style of the reader and writer. I had a look at singular 2 years ago,
and I did not find it easy at all (and it was not available as a
library anyway).
Hi
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Harald Schilly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I want to propose a process to increase the quality of the Sage
documentation. This is the by far most annoying thing about Sage
according to the last survey. I think the userbase is already big and
willing
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Harald Schilly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I want to propose a process to increase the quality of the Sage
documentation. This is the by far most annoying thing about Sage
according to the last survey. I think the userbase is already big and
willing enough
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Nils Bruin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I confirm this bug. This used to work. I assumed you didn't have a
trac account so I filed a bug report for you. This is now
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3960
I'm sure the developers appreciate your report
Incidentally, I invested a significant amount of time systematically
learning
C++ when I was an undergrad computer science major, so you're
right that this likely affects my perspective.
This is indeed interesting. If you say that ginac is nicely written,
then I really should consider
gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel seems to be back in business!
Jaap
On Aug 18, 12:35 pm, Harald Schilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:44 am, Harald Schilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The member list indicates a problem with the gmane address, it's
bouncing. This means, it does
Howdy,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Harald Schilly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I want to propose a process to increase the quality of the Sage
documentation. This is the by far most annoying thing about Sage
according to the last survey. I think the userbase is already big and
willing
On Aug 26, 8:56 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying: I, Harald, am willing to organize this,...
Ok, then I will start this on a wiki page and yes, organizing is
something i'm better than writing text.
H
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this
Hi Harald,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Harald Schilly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I want to propose a process to increase the quality of the Sage
documentation. This is the by far most annoying thing about Sage
according to the last survey. I think the userbase is already big and
On Aug 23, 11:04 am, Mike Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
Hi Mike,
While we continue to add tests to the notebook code, there are some
things that we just can't test directly in Python such as browser
interactions / Javascript / etc. Luckily, there is a nice software
package
The following input:
from sympy import Symbol
QQ(1)+Symbol('x')*QQ(2)
produces an error:
TypeError Traceback (most recent call
last)
/Applications/sage/ipython console in module()
/Applications/sage/element.pyx in
sage.structure.element.ModuleElement.__add__
Hi David,
That's the bug; if anyone knows of a workaround for now I'd like to
hear it. My code builds up complicated expressions involving
rationals and symbols, and no matter how I reorder things, one of them
fails in this manner. I know I can use 'var' instead of 'Symbol', but
I need
Hi,
I hung out with Dorian and Alex (the Knoboo guys) tonight, and they
pointed out that VirtualBox
has made a lot of progress since being bought by Sun a year ago. It
is thus time to at least
consider replacing using VMware for the current Sage windows
deployment with Virtualbox.
Does anybody
54 matches
Mail list logo
