Now available - Sierpinski triangle to a depth of 7, colored to
resemble a Christmas tree, as PDF files in US Letter and A4 sizes,
suitable for posting in your workplace.
Links at the very bottom of http://wiki.sagemath.org/pics
Joint work by Marshall Hampton (original code), David Joyner (conce
On Dec 6, 12:51 pm, "David M. Monarres" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
Hi David,
> When doing 3D plots on mac firefox (3.0.4) the jmol applet is just a
> black box with no plot. The same code works when using safari and on
> the command line.
This doesn't ring a bell. I assume you mea
Hi,
I mentioned this before in the context of the Sine Integral, Si(x),
but it appears that neither Sage nor Maxima have support for the
Sine Integral, Si(x) or the Cosine Integral, Ci(x).
See,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SineIntegral.html
and
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CosineIntegral.html
On Dec 6, 3:20 pm, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Michael
Hi Simon,
> On Dec 6, 5:55 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > See, this is exactly such a problem that back then was not properly
> > diagnosed and could potentially let someone to conclude that "Sage is
> > cra
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Sage-Devels,
>
> Let me again thank you for the excellent work put in building sage.
Thanks. The suggestion you make below is now trac #4734:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4734
>
> I've found a
Dear Sage-Devels,
Let me again thank you for the excellent work put in building sage.
I've found a bug in the most recent release. Specifically, when
invoked with the -notebook switch, the current release does not
properly quote paths. So, if I execute:
/Applications/sage/sage -notebook "/Users
On Dec 6, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> I'd like to add an exponential function to RDF/CDF matrices (and
> enhance
> the existing exp function for SR matrices) so that:
>
> sage: A = matrix(SR, [[1,2],[3,4]])
> sage: e^A
>
> gives the same as
>
> sage: A.exp()
>
> (I'd also like this
On Dec 6, 2008, at 09:41 , mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 6, 9:38 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2008, at 02:06 , mabshoff wrote:
[snip]
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.2.2/alpha1/trac_4719_bin.patch
OK, did a full build of 3.2.2.alpha0
Dear Michael
On Dec 6, 5:55 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See, this is exactly such a problem that back then was not properly
> diagnosed and could potentially let someone to conclude that "Sage is
> crap".
Well, I *did* report it more than one year ago, but I had no trac
account at
I see what you want now. If you can make this work (ie, satisfy the FTC),
then it does make sense to use your code as the default.
Thanks for explaining your construction and for working on the code!
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Paul Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When a1 = -infinity, I
When a1 = -infinity, I would make F1 = integrate(f, x, a2, x) instead of
integrate(f, x, a1, x). Then I would not calculate the definite integral of
the first interval, which would align my constants so that F(a2) = 0. When I
get a chance, I'll add this to my code.
Functions like floor with an inf
On Dec 6, 9:13 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:50 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 8:19 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 5, 5:10 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
>
> > > > You have to
Hi, Michael,
On Dec 6, 2008, at 09:41 , mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 6, 9:38 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2008, at 02:06 , mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Can you apply #4719 to the local/bin repo and rerun the tests?
>>
>> Hmmm...
[snip]
> Oops, you are right, the actua
I'd like to add an exponential function to RDF/CDF matrices (and enhance
the existing exp function for SR matrices) so that:
sage: A = matrix(SR, [[1,2],[3,4]])
sage: e^A
gives the same as
sage: A.exp()
(I'd also like this to work for other matrices, like over RDF or CDF,
where the returned
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Paul Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Either way, the property F'(x) = f(x) is not necessarily true for piecewise
> antiderivatives defined that way. Consider this function.
>
> f(x) = x, 0 <= x <= 1
> f(x) = 1, 1 < x
>
> If we use the definition you gave to
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If I had the expertise to implement it, I would do the following:
>
> The integration would return another Piecewise function in which the
> first interval is integrated normally, and the next ones would integrate
> the fu
If I had the expertise to implement it, I would do the following:
The integration would return another Piecewise function in which the
first interval is integrated normally, and the next ones would integrate
the function in that interval and add the definite integral of the
previous intervals. I
Hello,
When doing 3D plots on mac firefox (3.0.4) the jmol applet is just a
black box with no plot. The same code works when using safari and on
the command line.
I am wondering if anybody else is having a similar problem?
David Monarres
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~-
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Paul Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Currently, taking the integral of a piecewise function in Sage gives
> > you the definite integral. I've proposed on trac that the integral o
On Dec 6, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Paul Butler wrote:
>
> Currently, taking the integral of a piecewise function in Sage gives
> you the definite integral. I've proposed on trac that the integral of
> piecewise functions be indefinite by default. This would be consistent
> with how integration works o
On 12/6/08, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) Sage calls Maxima and asks it to do lots of definite integrals
> (about 30 in this case, each involving a sine or cosine) - these are the
> Fourier coefficients,
> (2) Sage multiplies each of these coefficients by a sine or cosine func
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:10 AM, bourbabis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello.
> Sorry, I should have exposed my case more thoroughly.
>
> You said : "Why are you trying to building
> again after compilation of a given package fails? Won't it just fail
> again?"
>
> No. For example, I've tried t
On Dec 6, 9:38 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2008, at 02:06 , mabshoff wrote:
> > Can you apply #4719 to the local/bin repo and rerun the tests?
>
> Hmmm...
>
> applying /SandBox/Justin/sb/Sage/Patches/trac_4719_bin.patch
> patching file sage-doctest
> Hunk #1
On Dec 6, 2008, at 02:06 , mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 5, 11:45 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 2008, at 02:19 , mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
>> Mac OS X, 10.5.5: the upgrade completed without problems.
>>
>> Testing did not go well. 56 tests failed (all of
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Paul Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Currently, taking the integral of a piecewise function in Sage gives
> you the definite integral. I've proposed on trac that the integral of
> piecewise functions be indefinite by default. This would be consistent
> with h
On Dec 6, 8:50 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:19 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5, 5:10 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> > > You have to manually resolve this merge conflict by editing
> > > integer.pyx, choosin
On Dec 6, 8:11 am, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> On Dec 6, 2:35 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- snip --
Hi Simon,
> > The concern here isn't relative performance. The bad thing is that
> > Maxima seems to take consistently longer and longer to do the sa
On Dec 6, 8:38 am, Dan Grayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Dan,
> Is there a plan for getting factorization over finite fields into
> sage? I ask,
> because I'd like to get it into Macaulay 2.
Do you mean are we working on fixing this bug in Factory? Then the
answer is "no" AFAIK, but the pr
On Dec 6, 8:19 am, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 5:10 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hi John,
>
> > You have to manually resolve this merge conflict by editing
> > integer.pyx, choosing one of the two options, and then
> > check in the result of doing
Currently, taking the integral of a piecewise function in Sage gives
you the definite integral. I've proposed on trac that the integral of
piecewise functions be indefinite by default. This would be consistent
with how integration works on other functions in Sage, as well as
piecewise functions in
Is there a plan for getting factorization over finite fields into
sage? I ask,
because I'd like to get it into Macaulay 2.
--
| Sage Version 3.2.1, Release Date: 2008-12-01 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI,
On Dec 5, 5:10 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You have to manually resolve this merge conflict by editing
> integer.pyx, choosing one of the two options, and then
> check in the result of doing the merge.
Actually, before you posted this I just edited integer.pyx by hand and
r
Dear Michael,
On Dec 6, 2:35 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
> The concern here isn't relative performance. The bad thing is that
> Maxima seems to take consistently longer and longer to do the same
> work.
Just for the record: A long time (>1year) ago, I had a similar problem
On Dec 6, 7:57 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:54 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David, rjf
> Sorry. I missed your post and emailed the Maxima list anyway.
> (I don't know what to do to test if the problem is really on the maxima side
> an
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:54 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I will at least email the Maxima users list and let you know if there
>> is a reply.
>
> Before doing that you should make sure that the problem is truly on
> the Maxima side. It seems like a bad idea to report an issue
My guess, and it is only a guess since I do not use CLISP, is the
following:
The allocation of floating-point number memory is too small, and you
are using it up,
so you are triggering garbage collections.
One possible fix: allocate more float memory in CLISP. See if that
changes timing.
Another
On Dec 6, 5:51 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:35 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So someone who knows what we do in Maxima when we call the above
> > functions should see if running the computation on vanilla Maxima also
> > shows the same
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:35 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> So someone who knows what we do in Maxima when we call the above
> functions should see if running the computation on vanilla Maxima also
> shows the same problem. I case vanilla Maxima has this is trying a
> Maxima with is
On Dec 6, 5:02 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
> I think the first computation of 10 seconds makes sense. You are
> basically doing
> around 30 definite integrals symbolically, multiplying each by a sine or
> cosine,
> adding them and plotting the result. If Maxima is do
I think the first computation of 10 seconds makes sense. You are
basically doing
around 30 definite integrals symbolically, multiplying each by a sine or cosine,
adding them and plotting the result. If Maxima is doing something
"dumb", I guess
it depends on how you define the term. I'm *guessing*
Hi Michael,
I was too fast. ^^ Thanks. I didn't know that.
Kwankyu
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://g
On Dec 6, 4:08 am, Kwankyu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Kwankyu,
> This is a small thing, but the History.txt file of Sage 3.2.1 contains
> the release note of Sage 3.2. It seems that there is no way to find
> the official release note of Sage 3.2.1 either in the distribution
> source o
Hi,
This is a small thing, but the History.txt file of Sage 3.2.1 contains
the release note of Sage 3.2. It seems that there is no way to find
the official release note of Sage 3.2.1 either in the distribution
source or in the Sage website.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To
Hello.
Sorry, I should have exposed my case more thoroughly.
You said : "Why are you trying to building
again after compilation of a given package fails? Won't it just fail
again?"
No. For example, I've tried to compile Atlas (the process takes
about 5 hours), may be 4 or 5 times and the last a
On Dec 6, 3:00 am, "Alex Ghitza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> > Ok, can you try the sieve directly to see if it is a problem with the
> >> sieve or with pexpect? Also: Does it just hang or sit there at 100%
> >> CPU? Once we have sorted that out we should open a ticket for the
> >> issue.
>
> Ok, can you try the sieve directly to see if it is a problem with the
>> sieve or with pexpect? Also: Does it just hang or sit there at 100%
>> CPU? Once we have sorted that out we should open a ticket for the
>> issue.
>>
>
> OK, I'm running QuadraticSieve right now. At the moment it's at 100
On Dec 5, 11:45 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 02:19 , mabshoff wrote:
Hi Justin,
> Mac OS X, 10.5.5: the upgrade completed without problems.
>
> Testing did not go well. 56 tests failed (all of the 'mysterious'
> sort). I ran "-ba" and tried again,
47 matches
Mail list logo
