http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6395191
It's a bug, known for 4 years, and nobody is fixing it, it seems...
On Feb 8, 12:49 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
> David Kirkby wrote:
> > On 1 February 2010 19:29, Jaap Spies wrote:
> >> Jaap Spies wrote:
>
> >>> Hi c++ experts,
>
> >>
The bug is in multiplication algorithm:
in sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_real_mpfr_dense.pyx
in function that does ring multiplication:
cpdef RingElement _mul_(left, RingElement _right):
there is line 431:
cdef PolynomialRealDense f = left._new(left._degree + right._degree)
that is creates a
Hi,
After procrastinating 3 years, I finally wrote a script to create
bdist's with fairly canonical names on different platforms. It's
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/bin/botdist
You just make sure it is in your PATH, and from SAGE_ROOT type
botdist
Note that the last line o
Lots of progress this week. Assuming you can get your Latex through
the tex4ht processor successfully then the script I have written will
quite faithfully convert the output to a Sage worksheet in sws
format. Included graphics pass through to the worksheet and if you
write tikz/pgf graphics in yo
On Jan 7, 10:19 am, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> This is maybe an obvious point, but I'll make it anyway:MPCis "brought
> to you by the makers of MPFR". They care a great deal about correctness,
> performance, and portability. Both packages are actively developed and
> extensively tested. I think that
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:22:54 -0800 (PST), Nils Bruin wrote:
> A very nice picture, but it made me notice something about the default
> graph lay-out:
> There are cases where a vertex lies almost perfectly on an edge. This
> makes it look like the edge is incident with the vertex. If there
> would b
On Feb 7, 9:19 am, Pat LeSmithe wrote:
> I've published spkg dependency graphs for Sage 4.3.2 at
>
> http://www.sagenb.org/home/pub/1530/
>
> Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome!
A very nice picture, but it made me notice something about the default
graph lay-out:
There are cases where a ver
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 2:25 PM, mhampton wrote:
> Those are both very cool.
>
> Is there a simple answer to why GAP is in such an unusual position?
This might be partly accounted for by the following surprising and
amazing fact:
GAP does not depend on or use GMP (or MPIR)!
Yes,
Those are both very cool.
Is there a simple answer to why GAP is in such an unusual position?
-Marshall
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this g
On 2010-Feb-05 11:00:00 +, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
>COPYING.LIB, which starts:
>
> GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
^^^
> Version 2, June 1991
>
> Copyright (C) 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 51 Franklin Street, Fifth
On 2010-Feb-04 23:56:27 +, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
>There is another maths library which can be linked, rather than using
>-lm. That at least got around this for the previous case of this.
For that matter, if anyone is aware of a suitably licensed C99 libm,
I'd also be interested.
Since w
For sage 4.3.1, I spent a little time laying out the deps file by hand:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/rlmill/deps.png
I still have the scripts, layout, etc. saved so it probably wouldn't
be much work to update it for 4.3.2.
--
Robert L. Miller
http://www.rlmiller.org/
--
To post to thi
I wonder whether it would be possible to give a better error message
when a user leaves out the multiplication operator in something like
x(x+1). Perhaps somthing like: "Warning: you may have forgotten a
multiplication operator."
Currently one gets the error message: "DeprecationWarning:
Substitut
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Pat LeSmithe wrote:
> I've published spkg dependency graphs for Sage 4.3.2 at
>
> http://www.sagenb.org/home/pub/1530/
>
> Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome!
That would be an awesome T-shirt!
William
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to sage-de
I've published spkg dependency graphs for Sage 4.3.2 at
http://www.sagenb.org/home/pub/1530/
Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome!
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
David Kirkby wrote:
On 1 February 2010 19:29, Jaap Spies wrote:
Jaap Spies wrote:
Hi c++ experts,
My C++ is a little bit rusty, so I'll ask here.
Building matplotlib, pynac, scipy and scipysandbox fail in the end with
A build log can be found here:
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home
Sage 4.3.2 / SageNB 0.7.4
This is
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8208
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.g
I am studying quantum mechanics for the first time, and I would love to
have some software dedicated to solving quantum mechanics problems to
make my life easyer.
AFAIK Cadabra is the only free software dedicated to this:
http://cadabra.phi-sci.com/
I will take some time to get familiarized w
>
> I also noticed that on my OS X 10.4 test box, testing of the file
> interfaces/maxima.py totally hangs:
>
> varro:~/screen/varro/sage-4.3.2.rc0 wstein$ ./sage -t --verbose
> /varro/sage-4.3.2.rc0/devel/sage/sage/interfaces/maxima.py
> ...
> Trying:
> maxima('2+2')###line 798:_sage_ >>>
even better:
sage: P. = PolynomialRing(RealField())
sage: P(0)*P(0)+P(0)
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
On Feb 7, 10:10 pm, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:59 pm, Florent Hivert
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi
>
> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 02:49:53AM -0800, Kiran Kedlaya wr
On Feb 7, 6:59 pm, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 02:49:53AM -0800, Kiran Kedlaya wrote:
> > The following input segfaults sage 4.3.2 on sage.math, as well as sage
> > 4.3 on various other machines.
>
> > P. = PolynomialRing(RealField())
> > print sum(P(0)*P(0) for k i
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Feb 7, 2010, at 12:12 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 6 February 2010 23:25, Jaap Spies wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
[...]
However, on OpenSolaris, the issue is more severe. Both Jaap and
William
will confirm that the test in python for
On 6 ún, 23:59, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> > I think making a trivial 4.3.3 and skipping posting 4.3.2 would cause
> > too much confusion...
>
> I apologize for the confusion I have caused.
>
No problem, Minh. Thank you for your good and hard work.
Compiles fine on Debian Lenny with kernel 2.6.26-2-68
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Feb 6, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Feb 6, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Feb 6, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I've noticed an issue at
http://t2nb.m
> Could you post the error message from ATLAS. There have been a lot of problems
> wtih ATLAS on Sage - specifically to those on Solaris, but workarounds have
> been
> found to all of them, even though there is no official new ATLAS release which
> addresses these points.
>
> It may be possible t
Hi
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 02:49:53AM -0800, Kiran Kedlaya wrote:
> The following input segfaults sage 4.3.2 on sage.math, as well as sage
> 4.3 on various other machines.
>
> P. = PolynomialRing(RealField())
> print sum(P(0)*P(0) for k in range(1))
>
> This example seems quite fragile; f
The following input segfaults sage 4.3.2 on sage.math, as well as sage
4.3 on various other machines.
P. = PolynomialRing(RealField())
print sum(P(0)*P(0) for k in range(1))
This example seems quite fragile; for instance, the segfault goes away
if you change RealField to RationalField, RealDouble
On Feb 7, 2010, at 12:12 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 6 February 2010 23:25, Jaap Spies wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
[...]
However, on OpenSolaris, the issue is more severe. Both Jaap and
William
will confirm that the test in python for hashlib has failed.
On 6 February 2010 23:25, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>
>> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> However, on OpenSolaris, the issue is more severe. Both Jaap and William
>> will confirm that the test in python for hashlib has failed.
>>
>
> To a certain extend. I had opensll i
On Feb 6, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Feb 6, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Sorry, I realised the problem - we are discussing two different
issues.
On Solaris 10 (SPARC), i.e. t2, this has never been an issue, as
python has built ok. There is no need to do anyth
30 matches
Mail list logo
