Oscar Lazo wrote:
I have published my own transform_plot3d
http://www.sagenb.org/home/pub/1323/
I was unaware of yours.
Thanks again for working on this!
I've made some comments at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7850
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-
On 01/ 6/10 03:24 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
It's gone 2 AM here, and I'm not going to go into a deep debugging
session, but if anyone has any ideas about the error below, let me know.
Systems is a Sun Ultra 27, 3.333 GHz Xeon.
Open Solaris 06/2009
gcc 4.4.2, configured to use the Sun linker (
I have published my own transform_plot3d
http://www.sagenb.org/home/pub/1323/
I was unaware of yours.
On 5 ene, 10:48, Jason Grout wrote:
> The following is what I'd like to think of as the "standard" way:
>
> plot(f, (var1, var1_start, var1_end), (var2, var2_start, var2_end))
That's how i made
I'm giving a short (15 min) talk at the annual US mathematics meetings
in San Francisco next week, about converting textbooks into Sage
worksheets. It's more a preview of what is possible, rather than
final report.
Here's links to the slides and a demo Sage worksheet that is suppose
to look like
>
> * document the helper functions get_sections(), print_contributors(),
> and print_section()
This is great - wonderful work! The below is just nitpicking, though
hopefully helpful.
I would recommend that we still obtain Authors and Reviewers (that is,
contributors) for "other tickets closed",
I thought I'd managed to sort this out, but I'd obvious failed, as I tried to
build Sage on OpenSolaris with 4.4.2 on an Intel Xeon based machine.
I made a minor patch to flint, so the SAGE64 flag works on any platform - not
just OS X. The patch is trivial - see
http://boxen.math.washington.
It's gone 2 AM here, and I'm not going to go into a deep debugging session, but
if anyone has any ideas about the error below, let me know.
Systems is a Sun Ultra 27, 3.333 GHz Xeon.
Open Solaris 06/2009
gcc 4.4.2, configured to use the Sun linker (not GNU 'ld')
I've attached the file it refere
Hi folks,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> I'm still building a boxen.math binary at the moment and will post a
> link to it when the compilation is completed.
A boxen.math binary of Sage 4.3.1.alpha1 is available at
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/mvngu/sage.math-b
Craig Citro wrote:
Any ideas?
Totally just spitballing here, but should this line:
/opt/sunstudio12.1/bin/cc -o libpari-gmp.so.2.3.3 -G -h libpari-gmp.so.2
mp.o mpinl.o Flx.o Qfb.o RgX.o alglin1.o alglin2.o arith1.o arith2.o base1.o
base2.o base3.o base4.o base5.o bibli1.o bibli2.o
Hi folks,
Mike Hansen has written a script [1] to automatically generate a
release note for a Sage milestone. I have updated Mike's script with
the following changes:
* re-order code to separate helper functions from the main part of the
script, with some general clean up
* allow one point of en
> Any ideas?
>
Totally just spitballing here, but should this line:
> /opt/sunstudio12.1/bin/cc -o libpari-gmp.so.2.3.3 -G -h libpari-gmp.so.2
> mp.o mpinl.o Flx.o Qfb.o RgX.o alglin1.o alglin2.o arith1.o arith2.o base1.o
> base2.o base3.o base4.o base5.o bibli1.o bibli2.o buch1.o buch2.
I seem to have a problem with Pari.
* sun Ultra 27 (Xeon processor)
* Sage 4.3.1.alpha0
* Sun Studio 12.1 compiler.
* Sage64 set to "yes"
in other words, I'm trying to be brave (stupid?) and create a 64-bit OpenSolaris
Sage binary with Sun Studio.
Many things work, but Pari is giving me a
Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
At William's request [1], I have made an alpha1 of Sage 4.3.1 that
fixes the issue with multiple versions of the PolyBori spkg. The
source tarball is available at
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/mvngu/sage-src/sage-4.3.1.alpha1.tar
and the upgrade path is
ht
Thomas R. Nicely's previously unpublished tables of prime counts and
prime reciprocal sums are now available at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/kstueve/T_R_NICELY/
These are the same data that Thomas R. Nicely has published at
http://www.trnicely.net/#PIX
but with more data points included
Oscar Lazo wrote:
On 5 ene, 09:45, Jason Grout wrote:
This is fantastic! Thank you very much.
You are very welcome :D
If you have the time or inclination, maybe you could also generalize
this to a cylindrical coordinate plotting function. In fact, I wonder
how easy it would be to make a f
Hi folks,
At William's request [1], I have made an alpha1 of Sage 4.3.1 that
fixes the issue with multiple versions of the PolyBori spkg. The
source tarball is available at
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/mvngu/sage-src/sage-4.3.1.alpha1.tar
and the upgrade path is
http://boxen.math.washi
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Jason Grout wrote:
I'm trying to generate a list of functions where each function returns
its place in a list. Here is my code:
cc=[(lambda: x) for x in [1..2]]
However, I have:
cc[0]() returns 2 (but I want it to return 1)
cc[1]() returns 2 (correctly)
Does any
On Jan 4, 12:29 am, Mike Hansen wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Sage 4.3.1.alpha0 is out.
On Mac OS X 10.6, things seem to have gotten worse: I have 93 files
failing with segfaults! Is anyone else seeing this?
--
John
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscrib
Hi Jason,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
> I'm trying to generate a list of functions where each function returns its
> place in a list.
Following Dag Sverre's suggestion:
[mv...@boxen ~]$ sage
--
| Sage Ver
Jason Grout wrote:
I'm trying to generate a list of functions where each function returns
its place in a list. Here is my code:
cc=[(lambda: x) for x in [1..2]]
However, I have:
cc[0]() returns 2 (but I want it to return 1)
cc[1]() returns 2 (correctly)
Does anyone know what is going on her
I'm trying to generate a list of functions where each function returns
its place in a list. Here is my code:
cc=[(lambda: x) for x in [1..2]]
However, I have:
cc[0]() returns 2 (but I want it to return 1)
cc[1]() returns 2 (correctly)
Does anyone know what is going on here? It seems like al
Dear Martin,
Thank you for the details.
Sebastian
On Jan 5, 4:55 pm, Martin Rubey
wrote:
> Martin Rubey writes:
> > Sebastian Pancratz writes:
>
> >> I am wondering whether there is a good reason for doing this.
>
> >> Typically, assuming that (or even on the spot enforcing that!) a/b and
> >
Hi William,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:22 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Minh -- can you please make an alpha1 release with the above fix
> applied?
A boxen.math binary [1] for Sage 4.3.1.alpha0 is available from my
home directory. This binary has the fix described above. The Sage
4.3.1.alpha0 sour
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Sage 4.3.1.alpha0 is out. Source and binary areavailable at
>>
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhansen/release/4.3.1/alpha0/sage-4.3.1.alpha0.tar
>
> I took
According to [1], sys.maxint will be removed in Py3K, so it might be
safer to replace it with sys.maxsize to save us a problem in the
future.
[1] http://docs.python.org/3.1/whatsnew/3.0.html#integers
Cheers
J
On Jan 4, 9:30 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> javier wrote:
> > How about using this?
2010/1/5 mhampton :
> Yes, I use gfan very frequently. The new version adds quite a bit of
> functionality that I think will be of interest to algebraic geometers.
>
> Anders Jensen, the creator and maintainer of gfan, is very responsive
> and I think would be happy to make improvements to the bui
Martin Rubey writes:
> Sebastian Pancratz writes:
>
>> I am wondering whether there is a good reason for doing this.
>>
>> Typically, assuming that (or even on the spot enforcing that!) a/b and
>> c/d are in lowest terms, it would be much faster to compute GCD(a,d)
>> and GCD(c,b) and to then di
Robert Dodier wrote:
On Dec 29 2009, 8:35 pm, Jason Grout
wrote:
I'm posting this to (1) share what I've learned by reading a lot over
the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
When I've written documentation for Max
Oscar Lazo wrote:
On 5 ene, 09:45, Jason Grout wrote:
This is fantastic! Thank you very much.
You are very welcome :D
If you have the time or inclination, maybe you could also generalize
this to a cylindrical coordinate plotting function. In fact, I wonder
how easy it would be to make a f
On 5 ene, 08:21, mhampton wrote:
> Congratulations! Do you have a trac account yet?
I probably have one, but i can't remember my username.
I'll ask wstein for help ;-)
> One thing you probably want to change is the assumption of variables
> phi and theta. I recommend looking at the source of
On 5 ene, 09:45, Jason Grout wrote:
> This is fantastic! Thank you very much.
You are very welcome :D
> If you have the time or inclination, maybe you could also generalize
> this to a cylindrical coordinate plotting function. In fact, I wonder
> how easy it would be to make a function that to
On Dec 29 2009, 8:35 pm, Jason Grout
wrote:
> I'm posting this to (1) share what I've learned by reading a lot over
> the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
> thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
When I've written documentation for Maxima (apart from the
Oscar Lazo wrote:
> Well, this is basically a clone of mathematicas "SphericalPlot3d" only
> that i thought the 3d was redundant.
>
> I've published the function here: http://www.sagenb.org/pub/1319/ .
> And cloned the examles in
> http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/SphericalPlot3D.html
Regarding whether it is a problem only on Solaris, I managed to find
this:
http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2009-March/003660.html
That seems to be the exact same bug. And it is suggested it is a
Solaris only problem.
Bill.
On Jan 5, 1:45 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> Bill Hart wr
2010/1/5 Sebastian Pancratz :
> Dear John,
>
>> At present we cannot rely on the input to + being reduced, since they
>> might have been created with reduce=False; in which case the value
>> returned by + (after using your idea) would not be reduced either --
>> is there any harm in that?
>
> Well
Hey Burcin,
Thank you for the link.
I should have some time in the next couple of days to look at this.
Assuming there are no major unexpected complications --- I wouldn't
want to start an involved process of completely rewriting something
like quotient fields here --- I'll hopefully have enough
Dear John,
> At present we cannot rely on the input to + being reduced, since they
> might have been created with reduce=False; in which case the value
> returned by + (after using your idea) would not be reduced either --
> is there any harm in that?
Well, as long as the behaviour is clearly do
Sebastian Pancratz writes:
> I am wondering whether there is a good reason for doing this.
>
> Typically, assuming that (or even on the spot enforcing that!) a/b and
> c/d are in lowest terms, it would be much faster to compute GCD(a,d)
> and GCD(c,b) and to then divide out appropriately. If all
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:04 AM, mhampton wrote:
> Yes, I use gfan very frequently. The new version adds quite a bit of
> functionality that I think will be of interest to algebraic geometers.
>
> Anders Jensen, the creator and maintainer of gfan, is very responsive
> and I think would be happy to
Congratulations! Do you have a trac account yet?
One thing you probably want to change is the assumption of variables
phi and theta. I recommend looking at the source of something such as
plot_vector_field3d.py (in plot/plot3d) for an example of setting up
the arguments using setup_for_eval_on_g
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> I'm in the process of writing a PermutationMatrix class (applications:
>> friendly interface to permuted decompositions, etc.):
>>
>> sage: P = permutation_matrix([0, 2, 1]); P
>> [1 0 0]
2010/1/5 Håkan Granath :
> Thanks a lot!
>
> It seems to boil down to that real(v14) is slow and shows the
> Exception, whereas v14.real() is instant and gives no error. I would
> have thought them to be equivalent.
I think it's always best to use the form a.real() (and similarly
a.sqrt(), a.conju
Yes, I use gfan very frequently. The new version adds quite a bit of
functionality that I think will be of interest to algebraic geometers.
Anders Jensen, the creator and maintainer of gfan, is very responsive
and I think would be happy to make improvements to the build if some
were offered. I t
Bill Hart wrote:
> Just so no one wastes any time on this David Kirkby and I have
> resolved this issue and a patch will be added upstream when we
> eventually get the new release out.
>
> Bill.
This issue is now
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7849
Bill's fix works for me, but he
Thanks a lot!
It seems to boil down to that real(v14) is slow and shows the
Exception, whereas v14.real() is instant and gives no error. I would
have thought them to be equivalent.
/Håkan
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
That looks like a bug to me: we should not see that error message!
Incidentally, if you insert I=QQbar(I) at the top then you should
not need most of the subsequent explicit QQbar() calls:
sage: I=QQbar(I)
sage: v1 = sqrt(QQbar(3))
sage: v2 = 999/1000*I
sage: v3 = (1 + v1)/2 + v2*(-3 - v1)/2
sa
Hi Sebastian,
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 04:10:08 -0800 (PST)
Sebastian Pancratz wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> When looking at trac ticket #7730 (which essentially ends with saying
> that GCD computations over multivariate polynomial rings are slow), I
> noticed that the current implementation of multiplicati
What you are saying is this: assuming that gcd(a,b)=gcd(c,d)=1 then
instead of setting (a/b) * (c/d) = (a*c//g)/(b*d//g) where
g=gcd(a*c,b*d) you instead use the same formula with
g=gcd(a,d)*gcd(b,c). That seems very sensible to me.
I don't know about the policy regarding reduction on creation o
Just so no one wastes any time on this David Kirkby and I have
resolved this issue and a patch will be added upstream when we
eventually get the new release out.
Bill.
On Jan 4, 11:19 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> I've had problems building mpir in Sage, so downloaded the clean source, to
Hi,
It seems computations in QQbar is sometimes much slower in Sage
4.3 than in the previous version. Here is an example (I am sorry
if it is too convoluted):
v1 = sqrt(QQbar(3))
v2 = QQbar(999/1000*I)
v3 = (1 + v1)/2 + v2*(-3 - v1)/2
v4 = (3 - v1)/2 + v2*(1 - v1)/2
v5 = v3*(1/2) + v4*QQbar(500/9
Dear all,
When looking at trac ticket #7730 (which essentially ends with saying
that GCD computations over multivariate polynomial rings are slow), I
noticed that the current implementation of multiplication in fraction
fields computes the product (a/b) * (c/d) by first computing a*c and
b*d, and
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Sage 4.3.1.alpha0 is out. Source and binary areavailable at
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhansen/release/4.3.1/alpha0/sage-4.3.1.alpha0.tar
I took the source tarball, unpacked it, and removed
polybori-0.6.3-2009
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> I'm in the process of writing a PermutationMatrix class (applications:
> friendly interface to permuted decompositions, etc.):
>
> sage: P = permutation_matrix([0, 2, 1]); P
> [1 0 0]
> [0 0 1]
> [0 1 0]
> sage: parent(P)
I'm in the process of writing a PermutationMatrix class (applications:
friendly interface to permuted decompositions, etc.):
sage: P = permutation_matrix([0, 2, 1]); P
[1 0 0]
[0 0 1]
[0 1 0]
sage: parent(P)
Full MatrixSpace of 3 by 3 sparse m
Hmmm,
I looked again through the scripts; perhaps it's worth trying directly
./sage -sh
cd spkg
./install
one more time, since the download of the 4.3 stuff seems to have been
successful. If that (still) does not work, I'm running out of ideas
(apart from the obvious, i.e. doing a fresh "full
55 matches
Mail list logo
