Hi everyone,
Sage 3.4.2 Lightweight LiveCD has been released today. You can
download it at:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/luciolastra/sagelwlcd/latest/
It's greatly improved since last version thanks to Alfredo Portes and
Rob Beezer who tried it out and recommended some changes.
Greetin
Hi William,
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 2:49 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Fredrik Johansson (mpmath author) posted this very nice blog post
> about sage days 15:
> http://fredrik-j.blogspot.com/2009/05/report-from-sage-days-15.html
Nice post. Even though I wasn't able to attend Sage Days 15
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Bill Page wrote:
>> Where can I find and/or test "jsmath equation editor"?
>
> I guess it's a little confusing to call it that, since mathdox
> apparently uses jsmath too.
Yes.
> What we are referring to is an equation editor that Davide (
Hi,
Fredrik Johansson (mpmath author) posted this very nice blog post
about sage days 15:
http://fredrik-j.blogspot.com/2009/05/report-from-sage-days-15.html
He asked that it be added to planet.sagemath.org. I realized that
nobody administers or maintains that site anymore.
It was setup by Yi Q
On 21 May 2009, at 04:19, gsw wrote:
> Sage-4.0.alpha0 did build fine on my G4 PowerBook 550Mhz with OS X
> 10.4.11 and Xcode 2.5. From the istall.log:
>
> gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -D__GMP_WITHIN_GMP -I.. -
> DOPERATION_scan1 -O2 -mpowerpc -no-cpp-precomp -force_cpusubtype_ALL
In the notebook, view is partially broken: for viewing a single
object,
view(ZZ[x])
works just fine, producing a nicely typeset "Z[x]". For viewing
multiple objects, though,
view([ZZ[x], RR, CC])
produces
[Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Integer Ring, Real Field with
53 bits of pr
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On May 22, 1:46 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I gotta run to the airport, but sources and upgrade bits of 4.0.rc0
>>> are in
>>>http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-4.0/rc0/
>> I must say, it's looking better on
On May 22, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>> We do this to avoid the (large) overhead of re-creating constants in
>> the bodies of loops, functions, etc. Perhaps we need to detect the
>> Integer=xxx line explicitly?
>
> Doing this accurately is equivalent to the halting problem.
Yep. De
> I don't think interacts are nearly that simple for a user to just
> enter
> a matrix. For one, the user would first have to define the function.
> Then how would the user use the matrix they put in?
I am imagining a syntax such as M = interact_matrix(nrows, ncols),
where the sage library
On 22 May 2009, at 16:56, Franco Saliola wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Kevin Horton
> wrote:
>>
>> On 22 May 2009, at 16:07, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>>> On May 22, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>>>
I am using sage-4.0.rc0 on 32 bit ubuntu 8.10.
I have disc
Nick Alexander wrote:
>> One easy thing to do would be to have a bunch of "helpers" for easy
>> things, like matrices.
>
> Isn't this what interact is good for?
The use case:
one of my linear algebra students wants to input a matrix as a table.
They click on a button, enter the entries, click
Bill Page wrote:
> Where can I find and/or test "jsmath equation editor"?
I guess it's a little confusing to call it that, since mathdox
apparently uses jsmath too. What we are referring to is an equation
editor that Davide (the author of jsmath) wrote:
http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/talks/2
> One easy thing to do would be to have a bunch of "helpers" for easy
> things, like matrices.
Isn't this what interact is good for?
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send e
> We do this to avoid the (large) overhead of re-creating constants in
> the bodies of loops, functions, etc. Perhaps we need to detect the
> Integer=xxx line explicitly?
Doing this accurately is equivalent to the halting problem. This is
what pragmas are for, but do we really want to start su
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> On 22 May 2009, at 16:07, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>>
>>> I am using sage-4.0.rc0 on 32 bit ubuntu 8.10.
>>>
>>> I have discovered a very strange interaction between the
>>> "Integer=int"
Serge A. Salamanka wrote:
> It will be great to enable Sage with 2D input.
>
> Any ideas how to do this ?
>
One easy thing to do would be to have a bunch of "helpers" for easy
things, like matrices. A student clicks on a button, and a javascript
window pops up that lets them specify the size
On 22 May 2009, at 16:07, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On May 22, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>> I am using sage-4.0.rc0 on 32 bit ubuntu 8.10.
>>
>> I have discovered a very strange interaction between the
>> "Integer=int"
>> declaration, division, and the number of times a worksheet i
On May 22, 1:52 pm, "Serge A. Salamanka" wrote:
> It will be great to enable Sage with 2D input.
>
> Any ideas how to do this ?
>
> #Serge
R has 2D input for numerics or characters that conceivably could be
wrapped and parsed by Sage. Still ugly though.
Ben
--~--~-~--~~
On May 22, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
> I am using sage-4.0.rc0 on 32 bit ubuntu 8.10.
>
> I have discovered a very strange interaction between the "Integer=int"
> declaration, division, and the number of times a worksheet is
> evaluated.
This is an error due to literal constant ex
I wasn't able to build on OS X 10.4 intel:
[...]
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I../.. -I../../
tests-m32 -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -mtune=nocona -march=nocona -c
t-locale.c
/bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -std=gnu99 -m32 -O2 -
fomit-frame-pointer -mtune=no
Where can I find and/or test "jsmath equation editor"?
How difficult might it be to convert the output of this editor to input to Sage?
2009/5/22 William Stein :
>
> 2009/5/22 Bill Page :
>>
>> It might be a stretch to fit this into the Sage NoteBook but the
>> MathDox formula editor
>>
>> http
On May 21, 1:19 am, gsw wrote:
> Hi,
> using ABI="32"
> CC="gcc -std=gnu99"
> CFLAGS="-O2 -mpowerpc -no-cpp-precomp -force_cpusubtype_ALL"
> CPPFLAGS=""
> CXX="g++"
> CXXFLAGS="-O2 -mpowerpc -no-cpp-precomp -force_cpusubtype_ALL"
> MPN_PATH=" powerpc32/vmx
William Stein wrote:
> 2009/5/22 Bill Page :
>> It might be a stretch to fit this into the Sage NoteBook but the
>> MathDox formula editor
>>
>> šhttp://www.mathdox.org/formulaeditor/
>>
>> might be a good starting point.
>
> To me that looks less capable and more ugly than the jsmath equation ed
On May 22, 11:24 am, William Stein wrote:
> 2009/5/22 Bill Page :
>
>
>
> > It might be a stretch to fit this into the Sage NoteBook but the
> > MathDox formula editor
>
> > http://www.mathdox.org/formulaeditor/
>
> > might be a good starting point.
>
> To me that looks less capable and more u
2009/5/22 Bill Page :
>
> It might be a stretch to fit this into the Sage NoteBook but the
> MathDox formula editor
>
> http://www.mathdox.org/formulaeditor/
>
> might be a good starting point.
To me that looks less capable and more ugly than the jsmath equation editor.
William
>The intermedia
Well, everything you said is true.
But I need to recommend Sage for installation to other people.
I guess this is not very important at the first stage. So I'll proceed
with Ganga and DIANE.
Several admins from BalticGrid didn't object compiling Sage for
installations, so an rpm package may not
It might be a stretch to fit this into the Sage NoteBook but the
MathDox formula editor
http://www.mathdox.org/formulaeditor/
might be a good starting point. The intermediate format produced by
the formula editor is actually OpenMath and in principle OpenMath was
designed for just this sort of
It will be great to enable Sage with 2D input.
Any ideas how to do this ?
#Serge
jason-s...@creativetrax.com пишет:
> Ben Woodruff wrote:
>> Do you know if 2D math input is in the process of being developed,
>> such as being able to type matrices in matrix format instead of having
>> to creat
2009/5/22 John H Palmieri :
>
>
>
> On May 22, 4:16 am, Martin Albrecht
> wrote:
>> On Friday 22 May 2009, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> > There are 3 conventions for the degree of the 0 polynomial, none of which
>> > is 0:
>>
>> > (1) None (a bit lazy and hard to work with in most non-python languag
I would love R(0).degree() == -Infinity. But if there is a compelling
reason such as performance or history, -1 is just ok...
Kwankyu
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
> 1. This is a very naive comment, but why are all the calculus/
> calculus.py methods not in the form
> {{{
> function(self,parameters)}}}
>
> and instead in the form
> {{{
> function(ex,parameters)}}}
>
> or
> {{{
> function(expression,parameters)}}}
>
> ? I understand why - in some sense it m
My apologies if these comments belong on the ticket; my original
intent was simply to assist the "official" referees of this stuff in
case they missed them (assuming that they are in fact problems), but
it seems now have pointed out things that just possibly might engender
discussion, so I figure
On May 22, 4:16 am, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> On Friday 22 May 2009, John Cremona wrote:
>
> > There are 3 conventions for the degree of the 0 polynomial, none of which
> > is 0:
>
> > (1) None (a bit lazy and hard to work with in most non-python languages)
> > (2) -1 (rather arbitrary, I th
Hi, I was the one who originally reported the bug - both to Chrome dev
team and the SAGE bugtracker.
FYI Chrome 2 beta has now become the stable and updates are silent and
forced with no possible way back to previous versions :-(
Regardless of the merits of this policy, Chrome's share is already
On May 22, 1:46 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I gotta run to the airport, but sources and upgrade bits of 4.0.rc0
> > are in
>
> > http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-4.0/rc0/
>
> I must say, it's looking better on Solaris.
;)
> Befo
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:18 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> 2009/5/22 Gonzalo Tornaria :
>> Sometimes I wish there was a standard/uniform way to code the frontend
>> for a multiple-implementation function in such a way that
>>
>> (a) introspection knows about it, so e.g. "function??" shows the
>> actu
On Friday 22 May 2009, John Cremona wrote:
> There are 3 conventions for the degree of the 0 polynomial, none of which
> is 0:
>
> (1) None (a bit lazy and hard to work with in most non-python languages)
> (2) -1 (rather arbitrary, I think, it just has the useful property
> of being strictly l
On Friday 22 May 2009, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22 Mai, 02:29, Kwankyu wrote:
> ...
>
> > This seems to me a bug. Isn't it? I am using Sage 3.4.2.
>
> Or at least: It is a very nasty inconsistency -- and note that the
> inconsistent behaviour apparently is intended.
> At least,
On May 21, 11:33 pm, pang wrote:
> I have uploaded an example of an interaction which could be used to
> present the problem of the eight queens:
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/interact/misc#Queensonboard
I also added an example: play nim against a perfect oponent. I created
a special page in th
I am using sage-4.0.rc0 on 32 bit ubuntu 8.10.
I have discovered a very strange interaction between the "Integer=int"
declaration, division, and the number of times a worksheet is evaluated.
Consider the following worksheet. The very first time it is
evaluated, division is handled as float
Dear John
On 22 Mai, 10:25, John Cremona wrote:
> There are 3 conventions for the degree of the 0 polynomial, none of which is
> 0:
>
> (1) None (a bit lazy and hard to work with in most non-python languages)
> (2) -1 (rather arbitrary, I think, it just has the useful property
> of being st
mabshoff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I gotta run to the airport, but sources and upgrade bits of 4.0.rc0
> are in
>
>http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-4.0/rc0/
I must say, it's looking better on Solaris.
Before going to bed, I started to build 4.0.rc0. I woke up this mornin
There are 3 conventions for the degree of the 0 polynomial, none of which is 0:
(1) None (a bit lazy and hard to work with in most non-python languages)
(2) -1 (rather arbitrary, I think, it just has the useful property
of being strictly less than any other degree)
(3) -Infinity (less arbitra
2009/5/22 Gonzalo Tornaria :
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:27 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>> However sometimes I have felt that "algorithm" did not quite capture
>> the distinction being made for some function. I have written
>> functions in Sage which have an algorithm parameter which can be
>> eit
Hi,
On 22 Mai, 02:29, Kwankyu wrote:
...
> This seems to me a bug. Isn't it? I am using Sage 3.4.2.
Or at least: It is a very nasty inconsistency -- and note that the
inconsistent behaviour apparently is intended.
At least, it is doc tested:
In the univariate case, we have the doc test
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:00 AM, ahmet alper parker wrote:
>
> If not any exists or poor, I can contribute in the Turkish translation
> too... If there is a standard way of doing that, it would be much
> easier for other languages as well...
You can find more information regarding translations o
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Maurizio wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> For some strange reason, I fell into the SAGE-intro-Italian wiki page.
> I am Italian, and I can see that translation has been done with an
> automatic translator (something like babelfish or google translate),
> and looks a bit em
47 matches
Mail list logo
