On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
>> What's the difference between "==" and "is" (or, more to the point:
>> where is this discussed)?
>
> This is a Python thing as "==" is equality testing and "is" is memory
> address testing. For example,
>
> sage: a = 2
> sage: b =
On Sep 10, 2008, at 7:35 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Justin Walker wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>>> Jason Merrill wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:35 pm, Justin Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
There may be a more pythonic way to do this--I'm just try
> I can well understand why no-one wanted to write their own conversion
> of a multi-variable poly to a string, but it would not be any harder
> than for univars: just loop over the monomials...
> John
:-) My main concern is not the writing part but making it fast, since ideally
one would conv
Here's the original announcement btw.:
Sage days 10 in Nancy (France) Announcement
===
October 10 to 15, 2008 at the Lorraine Laboratory of IT Research
and its Applications (Loria)
Sage is a python based software distribution that combines
On Sep 10, 10:02 am, "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what I would like to do in produce an update to the Sage
> 'fricas-1.0.3.spkg' optional package to include building the Aldor
> interface if Aldor is present.
>
> The Sage people, however are very concerned about the build time
[being slightly OT]
On Sep 10, 1:49 pm, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> On Sep 10, 10:40 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is my impression that your code is mostly Sage library code,
>
> I guess it doesn't fit to this thread's subject, so perhaps you
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:42 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 6:35 am, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Simon King wrote:
>>
>> > Dear all,
>
> Hi,
>
>> > what exactly are Sage Days?
>>
>> Dear Simon (and anyone else who migh
Dear Michael,
On Sep 10, 10:40 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is my impression that your code is mostly Sage library code,
I guess it doesn't fit to this thread's subject, so perhaps you (or
whoever) may answer off-list:
What is Sage library code, in contrast to a package?
Anywa
On Sep 10, 6:35 am, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Simon King wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
Hi,
> > what exactly are Sage Days?
>
> Dear Simon (and anyone else who might be wondering),
>
> Sage Days is kind of the catch all name for Sage workshops. Those
On Sep 10, 1:12 pm, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
Hi,
> On Sep 10, 3:35 pm, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Besides these --- usually quite productive --- coding sprints there are
> > also a
> > fair number of talks.
>
> Is there still a free slot for a contri
On Sep 10, 9:51 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Him
> I'm not sure what has been reported so far regarding building rc1, but here
> are some failures.
>
> On OSX 10.5 these fail:
>
> sage -t -long devel/sage/sage/crypto/mq/sr.py
Memory
> sage -t -long dev
On Sep 10, 9:14 am, "Georg S. Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
HIm
> status report for OS X 10.4 / Xcode 2.4.1 (the same on two machines),
> building
> - Sage 3.1.2rc1
> with two spkgs replaced:
> - libm4ri-20080909.spkg
> - polybori-0.5rc.p5.spkg
> (the other pending patches for rc2 were not
Need more traffic to your site? Look no more, we can help! Our traffic
exchange is rapidly becoming the most responsive and fastest growing
on the net. Mention Google Groups in a support ticket after signing up
and get an additional 1000 hits to your website! Your site will be
shown on 10 other tr
Hi!
On Sep 10, 3:35 pm, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Besides these --- usually quite productive --- coding sprints there are also a
> fair number of talks.
Is there still a free slot for a contributed talk? I could talk about
my Sage application (compute the cohomology rings for
2008/9/10 Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Of course, I *could* write our own _repr_ function instead of just using
>> > whatever Singular returns back.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to write a conversion from singular to a Sage
>> type? Or would that be impossibly complicated (I have no
BTW, one can define a random matrix somewhat like those generated by
sage inside giac:
f():=randpoly(1,x)*randpoly(1,y)/rand(100)
A:=ranm(8,8,f)
det(A) (Bareiss)
det_minor(A) (minor expansion)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@go
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, John Cremona wrote:
> 2008/9/10 Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Wednesday 10 September 2008, John Cremona wrote:
> >> 2008/9/10 Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > On 10-Sep-08, at 1:49 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> >> >> On Wednesday 10 September
2008/9/10 Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wednesday 10 September 2008, John Cremona wrote:
>> 2008/9/10 Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > On 10-Sep-08, at 1:49 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday 10 September 2008, mabshoff wrote:
>> >>> This is double plus not good.
>
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, John Cremona wrote:
> 2008/9/10 Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On 10-Sep-08, at 1:49 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 10 September 2008, mabshoff wrote:
> >>> This is double plus not good.
> >>>
> >>> {{{
> >>> sage: GF(109)['x', 'y'](-10)
> >>>
2008/9/10 Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> On 10-Sep-08, at 1:49 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wednesday 10 September 2008, mabshoff wrote:
>>> This is double plus not good.
>>>
>>> {{{
>>> sage: GF(109)['x', 'y'](-10)
>>> -10
>>> sage: GF(109)['x'](-10)
>>> 99
>>>
>>> }}}
>>
>> I
In email with subject: [fricas-devel] Re: Alert, heavy patch committed ...
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Martin Rubey wrote:
>
> Did you use --with-algebra-optimization="((speed 3) (safety 0))" ?
> When you do, the resulting friCAS should be quite a bit faster...
>
I used only the defaults i
On Sep 10, 11:16 am, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi parisse,
>
> I agree that this is a question of which algorithm is used.
>
> Singular uses two algorithms:
>
> poly smCallDet(ideal I)
>
> which uses Bareiss
>
> and
>
> poly singclap_det(matrix m)
>
> which seems to be a m
Hi,
I'm not sure what has been reported so far regarding building rc1, but here
are some failures.
On OSX 10.5 these fail:
sage -t -long devel/sage/sage/crypto/mq/sr.py
sage -t -long devel/sage/sage/interfaces/lisp.py
sage -t -long devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix_real_dou
On 10-Sep-08, at 1:49 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 10 September 2008, mabshoff wrote:
>> This is double plus not good.
>>
>> {{{
>> sage: GF(109)['x', 'y'](-10)
>> -10
>> sage: GF(109)['x'](-10)
>> 99
>>
>> }}}
>
> I don't see the problem, since -10 == 99 mod GF(109).Even if it is
status report for OS X 10.4 / Xcode 2.4.1 (the same on two machines),
building
- Sage 3.1.2rc1
with two spkgs replaced:
- libm4ri-20080909.spkg
- polybori-0.5rc.p5.spkg
(the other pending patches for rc2 were not applied):
PowerPC 550MHz:
Builds successful, yeah! (The doctests were just started,
It's probably just a function pointer.
void(*nNormalize)(number &a);
But I am not sure about side effects.
Michael
On 10 Sep., 15:54, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/10 Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday 10 September 2008, mabshoff wrote:
> >> This
Justin Walker wrote:
>
> On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 6:35 pm, Justin Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, all,
>>> There may be a more pythonic way to do this--I'm just trying to
>>> translate something I saw in Ruby. I think
2008/9/10 Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wednesday 10 September 2008, mabshoff wrote:
>> This is double plus not good.
>>
>> {{{
>> sage: GF(109)['x', 'y'](-10)
>> -10
>> sage: GF(109)['x'](-10)
>> 99
>>
>> }}}
>
> I don't see the problem, since -10 == 99 mod GF(109).Even if it is und
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Simon King wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> what exactly are Sage Days?
Dear Simon (and anyone else who might be wondering),
Sage Days is kind of the catch all name for Sage workshops. Those workshops
can be organised by different people or groups of people and vary in sty
Hi parisse,
I agree that this is a question of which algorithm is used.
Singular uses two algorithms:
poly smCallDet(ideal I)
which uses Bareiss
and
poly singclap_det(matrix m)
which seems to be a multi-modular approach. The heuristic to choose between
the two is implemented in smChec
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, mabshoff wrote:
> This is double plus not good.
>
> {{{
> sage: GF(109)['x', 'y'](-10)
> -10
> sage: GF(109)['x'](-10)
> 99
>
> }}}
I don't see the problem, since -10 == 99 mod GF(109).Even if it is undesired
that they print differently how come it is 'major'? Wh
on amd64 gutsy gibbon, builds fine and all tests pass
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> after the not so great rc0 this one will hopefully work a lot better.
> Most issues beside ghmm and hmm should be fixed. PolyBoRi should
> actually be wo
2008/9/10 John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/9/9 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a difference between doctests in a .py and .pyx file? I put
>>> the exact same doctest into a .py file where it
Dear all,
what exactly are Sage Days?
My work on computational group cohomology relies on Sage, so i guess
my university would give me travel support for attending Sage Days. On
the other hand: I don't know if "using Sage" and "occasionally writing
a few lines of code" qualifies for attending Sa
2008/9/9 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Is there a difference between doctests in a .py and .pyx file? I put
>> the exact same doctest into a .py file where it runs fine, and in a
>> .pyx file where it goes into
I seem to have hit this by accident:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4096.
John
2008/9/10 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> On Sep 9, 7:27 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> David Harvey wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 9, 2008, at 10:20 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>> >>> Could a ticket
> Thoughts?
> Martin
It's most probably the algorithm used. I have observed that computing
a determinant with multivariate polynomial coefficients is most of the
time faster if you expand minors 2x3 then 3x3 ... up to nxn using
previously computed minors, avoiding divisions. If the coefficients o
37 matches
Mail list logo
