I just uploaded a patch (needs review!) to
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8866
that lets a user do some natural things with vector-valued functions.
I'm posting here to call for any feedback on the syntax:
f(x,y) = tuple or list
Here are some examples:
sage: T(r,theta)=[r*cos(theta
New spkg as 0.8.p2 at the mentioned number needing review with the bug fix.
So you were right regarding that problem -- zope.testbrowser's dependencies
changed, and the download script wasn't updated.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Tim Joseph Dumol wrote:
> Actually, it seems that that's not t
Actually, it seems that that's not the only problem, as J. Cremona noted:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8861
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:59 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Tim Joseph Dumol wrote:
> > This isn't related to my new package includes. Jinja2 wasn
I have also found that it has the side-effect you mention.
It makes debugging easier, if it is needed at all.
Hopefully this will also be true of the person who ends up
maintaining our code after we're gone.
Thanks for the permission. Your quote appears on the
documentation page of the axiom webs
Could I be agreeing with Tom?
Well, sort of.
If you are writing a program in the context of some on-going project,
trying
to improve the program that does (say) multiplication, then it is
exactly
relevant to compare your new program to the one you propose to
replace.
And if you have yet another id
On 05/04/2010 12:16 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
[snip]
> But I was surprised at how much difference it made to the debugging
> time.
I made the same experience. Literate programming is not only beneficial
for the people who read the literate program, but if the matter is
complex enough, it's also good f
> I've always been confused about people who present benchmarks of their
> own code against more of their own code, rather than to have the
> courage to compare against other people's code.
I think this can be useful in some contexts. It can "normalize away"
the skill of the programmer and the am
On May 3, 9:32 pm, rjf wrote:
> Your comments are interesting:
> 1. Theorists tend to reject all papers that merely demonstrate working
> programs,
> in favor of papers that have proofs. That is what has made the ISSAC
> conferences
> so boring and low in attendance.
Interesting observation. I
Ah you arrived right on cue. LOL!
Ha ha, you can quote me if you want, but I have written a couple of
literate programs in my life, so I'm hardly an expert.
But I was surprised at how much difference it made to the debugging
time.
Bill.
On May 3, 10:04 pm, Tim Daly wrote:
> Bill Hart wrote:
>
Bill Hart wrote:
That's actually a very interesting paper. I've recently been playing
with Forth, which is a kind of "Lisp type language" (yeah I know you
won't agree with that), based on a data stack. I also worked through a
book on Lisp up to the point where macros were defined, as I wanted t
Your comments are interesting:
1. Theorists tend to reject all papers that merely demonstrate working
programs,
in favor of papers that have proofs. That is what has made the ISSAC
conferences
so boring and low in attendance.
2. I don't have a separate implementation of the Schoenhage-Strassen
FF
A heads up if you are in Texas... Next week I will be doing a sage tutorial.
-- Forwarded message --
From: TACC Announcements
Date: Monday, May 3, 2010
Subject: Reminder: Scientific Software Day 2010
To: wst...@gmail.com
Reminder: Scientific Software Day 2010From: Bob Garza
Sci
I didn't see any mention in your paper of the Schoenhage-Strassen FFT
for exact arithmetic. It would be faster than using CRT for a whole
lot of multiplications modulo small primes.
No number theorist would accept the results of "exact arithmetic" done
using FFTW or other floating point FFT's unle
Hi Ross,
On Sun, 2 May 2010 19:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Ross Kyprianou wrote:
> > You should add a new integrator function and register it in the
> > dictionary sage.symbolic.integration.integral.available_integrators.
> >
> > At some point we also need to come up with a protocol to allow these
> > fun
That's actually a very interesting paper. I've recently been playing
with Forth, which is a kind of "Lisp type language" (yeah I know you
won't agree with that), based on a data stack. I also worked through a
book on Lisp up to the point where macros were defined, as I wanted to
understand how that
There is such a module in Sage. It's just not the one we are talking
about here.
It's actually not necessary to use Colins' arithmetic to get good
speed. The algorithm I'm currently using can make use of a fast
Kronecker Segmentation algorithm and will actually work *faster* than
Colins' arithmeti
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Sergey Bochkanov
wrote:
> Hello, William.
>
>> In Sage we (=mostly Gonzalo Tornaria) spent an enormous amount of time
>> writing two very efficient C functions, one to convert from mpz to
>> Python ints, and one to convert back. Yes, writing this code is a
>> lot
I finished rewriting and cleaning up my code. There is now a function
mpfr_poly_mul(mpfr_poly_t res, mpfr_poly_t pol1, mpfr_poly_t pol2,
ulong guard_bits).
If pol1 and pol2 are computed to sufficient precision in the first
place (i.e. a bit more than the precision you want in the end) and
guard_bi
Hi Sage-Devel,
Some amusing quotes from the GiNaC page:
http://www.ginac.de/People.html (Note that GiNaC is a C++ library
that is at the core of Sage's symbolic manipulation system.)
* Richard J. Fateman must be mentioned for his stimulating scepticism
("Maybe what should be done is [...] to d
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Tim Joseph Dumol wrote:
> This isn't related to my new package includes. Jinja2 wasn't one of those
> new packages. The problem is that SageNB is installed before Jinja2 is
> installed, so it's more of a problem in the dependency script.
Cool -- then that should be
This isn't related to my new package includes. Jinja2 wasn't one of those
new packages. The problem is that SageNB is installed before Jinja2 is
installed, so it's more of a problem in the dependency script.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:01 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is now
> http://t
Hi,
This is now
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8858
William
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> Harald, I made almost the same point earlier today (but in my case it
> was sagenb building which tried to access the internet. Which failed
> as I was building over
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Harald Schilly wrote:
> Hi, while watching the compilation of 4.4.1 I saw that it stopped
> compiling and waited for a package to download. I'm curious if this is
> intended or just a strange glitch. At least my idea of a self
> containing source package is that it
Harald, I made almost the same point earlier today (but in my case it
was sagenb building which tried to access the internet. Which failed
as I was building overnight and had turned off my home internet
connection.)
John
On 3 May 2010 15:39, Harald Schilly wrote:
> Hi, while watching the compi
Hi, while watching the compilation of 4.4.1 I saw that it stopped
compiling and waited for a package to download. I'm curious if this is
intended or just a strange glitch. At least my idea of a self
containing source package is that it doesn't need to download software
from the internet!
...
creat
If you are not doing floating point arithmetic with machine
arithmetic, but using MPFR, then you are sacrificing a huge amount of
time. You might as well be using rational arithmetic, or the kind of
arithmetic that Collins once proposed, where the denominator is a
power of 2. Makes reducing to l
Hi all,
I ran into the following problem trying to compile Sage 4.4.1 on Mac
OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard). My configuration:
MacBook Pro 17" 2.16 GHz Intel Core Duo (32bit) (Full specs at
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/stats/macbook_pro_2.16_17.html)
2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
Mac OS
On May 3, 6:27 am, William Stein wrote:
> I've released sage-4.4.1:
Cool, I've put it on the mirror network and it will be available there
soon.
H
--
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...@goo
28 matches
Mail list logo
