Thanks, Mike. That's very helpful.
Rob
On Apr 17, 10:58 pm, Mike Hansen mhan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com
wrote:
Since (I believe) it passes doctests without the link directive,
removing it *is* the right thing: these
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Maurizio maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, even assuming that I can get the right answer from this,
which is the recommended way to get the roots of an equation given by
a univariate polynomials == 0? This is supposed to be the next step
of the
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John H Palmieri
jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote:
I figured out how to fix the problem, although I still don't know why
adding a docstring should cause it.
To fix it: the docstring for print_or_typeset contains the lines
...
Well, I can tell you why adding a
Carl, Burcin,
thank you very much for your support.
Burcin, I'm sorry for the trivial mistake. Thank you for pointing it
out.
Unfortunately, I don't understand this:
The theory only works over characteristic 0, i.e., your fields should
contain QQ. Also note that,
sage: P.x,z = GF(5)[]
sage:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net wrote:
Hi Carl,
Thanks for the explanation - good to know just why this was
happening. I'd noticed the tests being run in a different order as I
tried to debug this, but hadn't dug deep enough to discover the cause.
In
Where's the patch?
John
Oops. I've posted it now.
William
It's very interesting to run on the full rc3 tree with a fixed random
seed. I think this
reveals *numerous* errors and subtle problems:
./sage -tp 20 -long -rand=1 devel/sage/sage/ testlong-rand1.log
This already turns
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted a patch so that
(1) doctests are ran in the same order as the file
(2) doctests can be run in random order
(3) doctests can be run in random order specified by a seed
Carl, maybe you can referee it:
On Apr 18, 5:05 pm, Carl Witty carl.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted a patch so that
(1) doctests are ran in the same order as the file
(2) doctests can be run in random order
(3) doctests can be run in random order
On Apr 18, 5:05 pm, Carl Witty carl.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, what should happen now? I like the patch (except for the name of
the command-line argument); but it can't be applied because it makes
doctests fail.
I'd suggest the randomized order should be made available as soon as
possible.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Carl Witty carl.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted a patch so that
(1) doctests are ran in the same order as the file
(2) doctests can be run in random order
(3) doctests can be run in
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net wrote:
On Apr 18, 5:05 pm, Carl Witty carl.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, what should happen now? I like the patch (except for the name of
the command-line argument); but it can't be applied because it makes
doctests fail.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Maurizio maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you be clearer? As I told, I'm not familiar with rings. I don't
even know the meaning of the argument of GF (I took the number 5 from
an example I see in sage-support group, I think). Do you think that QQ
[]
On Apr 18, 5:24 pm, mabshoff mabsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
One thing that would be nice to see is that one should be able to
run
the doctest N times with N something like 100 or even 1,000 for
example and each time a random seed would be picked. Then if any
failure occurred the doctesting
Thanks for the answer.
As the time goes, I get more understanding of the complexity of the
problem (much more than I expected at first).
On 19 Apr, 02:27, Carl Witty carl.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Maurizio maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you be clearer?
Hi sage-devel,
I'm slowly and painfully making my way through
schemes/generic/morphism.py and have run into some trouble that
persisted even after looking at rings/morphism.pyx which was recently
doctested by William.
So here are some questions:
1. sage -coverage asks for a doctest of the form
On Apr 18, 6:06 pm, Alex Ghitza aghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi sage-devel,
Hi Alex,
I'm slowly and painfully making my way through
schemes/generic/morphism.py and have run into some trouble that
persisted even after looking at rings/morphism.pyx which was recently
doctested by William.
So
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 6:34 PM, mabshoff mabsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Apr 18, 6:06 pm, Alex Ghitza aghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi sage-devel,
Hi Alex,
I'm slowly and painfully making my way through
schemes/generic/morphism.py and have run into some trouble that
persisted even after
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Maurizio maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
QQ is the rational numbers (fractions). QQbar is the algebraic
closure of QQ; this means it includes every complex number which is
the root of a polynomial with rational coefficients. So it includes
things like
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Carl Witty carl.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Maurizio maurizio.gran...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you be clearer? As I told, I'm not familiar with rings. I don't
even know the meaning of the argument of GF (I took the number 5 from
an
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM, mabshoff mabsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Apr 18, 5:20 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Carl Witty carl.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted a
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 6:55 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
First problem with QQbar: it seems that resultant() doesn't like it,
because it is not able to convert it to a Singular ring (this is the
error, I'm not attaching all the output, tell me if you need it)
TypeError: no
1. sage -coverage asks for a doctest of the form s == loads(dumps(s)).
As far as I can tell however, it is happy if there is one such test
in a file, even if the file happens to define 20 different classes. I
would assume that we want a doctest of this form for each class
definition, is
22 matches
Mail list logo
