Hi Carl,
Thanks for the heads-up, its been so long since I read the Python 3
changes and that one hadn't stuck. Will do.
Rob
On Jul 24, 1:20 pm, Carl Witty wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> > So it is a verb. ;-)
>
> > Looks like similar comments apply to edges
On Jul 24, 2:29 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> [...]
> At Sage Days 24, I learned that Python allows the user to do arithmetic
> with bools:
>
> In [1]: 5+True
> Out[1]: 6
> [...]
> Any comments?
Preface: Python is my favorite language. These are just comments, no
flames please.
However, for the u
Hi Burcin,
As Dana Ernst has now mentioned on the ticket, this an outgrowth of
the professional development workshop that Jason Grout, Karl-Dieter
Crisman and myself have been running this summer on Sage through the
Mathematical Association of America. Dana is one of our top
students. ;-) But s
if True means 1, then can you use
1 as a truth value in a conditional expression?
In which case 0 would be false.
What would 2 or 3 mean?
Lisp distinguishes numbers from nil. Usually nil means false, (though
in Scheme, there is
another "false" value and nil means the empty list.
However, anythi
On 24 July 2010 22:29, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Sage Days 24, I learned that Python allows the user to do arithmetic
> with bools:
>
> In [1]: 5+True
> Out[1]: 6
I personally don't see anything wrong with that - True has long since
been defined as 1 in most languages, and False as 0.
I
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Sage Days 24, I learned that Python allows the user to do arithmetic
> with bools:
>
> In [1]: 5+True
> Out[1]: 6
>
> In [2]: True + False
> Out[2]: 1
>
> In [3]: 5+False
> Out[3]: 5
>
> Sage seems to follow this convention as well
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Sage Days 24, I learned that Python allows the user to do arithmetic
> with bools:
>
> In [1]: 5+True
> Out[1]: 6
>
> In [2]: True + False
> Out[2]: 1
>
> In [3]: 5+False
> Out[3]: 5
>
> Sage seems to follow this convention as well
Hi,
Trac #9200 [1] adds new keywords from_left and from_right to the top
level limit() function. We already have above, below, minus, plus as
keywords. I wonder if a new one is necessary, and if it should be
"from_left/from_right".
[1] http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9200
For reference
Hi,
At Sage Days 24, I learned that Python allows the user to do arithmetic
with bools:
In [1]: 5+True
Out[1]: 6
In [2]: True + False
Out[2]: 1
In [3]: 5+False
Out[3]: 5
Sage seems to follow this convention as well:
sage: 5 + True
6
sage: 5. - True
4.00
I can't see any use cases
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> So it is a verb. ;-)
>
> Looks like similar comments apply to edges().
>
> I'm thinking that optionally passing in a comparison function would be
> a nice thing to add - a minor convenience, but also it would drive
> home the point that the
You might find this interesting...
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.7221&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Taivalsaari, Antero "On the Notion of Inheritance"
ACM Computing Surveys, Vol 28 No 3 Sept 1996
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Harald Schilly
wrote:
So it is a verb. ;-)
Looks like similar comments apply to edges().
I'm thinking that optionally passing in a comparison function would be
a nice thing to add - a minor convenience, but also it would drive
home the point that the sorting is somewhat the caller's
responsibility in non-trivial si
http://www.jmodelica.org/page/199
--
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.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sage
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Harald Schilly
> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 8:10 am, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> We should do this as part of the tests, collect timing data on each
>>> test block (and perhaps even each line?).
>>
>> I don'
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Harald Schilly
wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:10 am, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> We should do this as part of the tests, collect timing data on each
>> test block (and perhaps even each line?).
>
> I don't think this would work for all lines because completing all the
> t
On Jul 24, 8:10 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> We should do this as part of the tests, collect timing data on each
> test block (and perhaps even each line?).
I don't think this would work for all lines because completing all the
tests would take too long (if we want to use "timeit", each line is
r
Install the system-wide readline-dev package for your linux distro.
William
2010/7/24 Jae :
> Hi,
>
> I did
>rm (SAGE_ROOT)/local/lib/*readline*
> but still get the following error.
>
>
> Machine: Linux linux-zvbz.site 2.6.34-12-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT
> 2010-06-29 02:39:08 +0200
On 07/24/10 05:58 PM, Jae wrote:
Hi,
I did
rm (SAGE_ROOT)/local/lib/*readline*
but still get the following error.
Try copying the following to the directory sage-4.5.1/spkg/standard
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/readline-6.1.spkg
It is the latest readline. I
Hi,
I did
rm (SAGE_ROOT)/local/lib/*readline*
but still get the following error.
Machine: Linux linux-zvbz.site 2.6.34-12-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT
2010-06-29 02:39:08 +0200 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
=
.
=
checking for dlopen in -ldl... yes
chec
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 07/24/10 10:41 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:24 AM, David Kirkby
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24 July 2010 09:38, Robert Bradshaw
>>> wrote:
>
I like "Published" and "Shared" better.
>>>
>>> I think the issue
Hi,
After
rm (SAGE_ROOT)/local/lib/*readline*
sage compiles successfully in Opensue 11.3.
Thanks!
Shing
On Jul 23, 9:06 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Shing wrote:
> > Hi,
> > When I compile Sage 4.5.1 in Opensue 11.3, I get the following
> > erro
Chris,
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Chris Godsil wrote:
> ... its the complicated vertices that are causing the problem, I expect.
The problem is that the comparison operators in Python for sets
implement the subset notion, and thus do not provide a proper sorting
of a list of sets:
http://
I would simply add a caveat to the documentation. Most users use
either integers for vertices, or a set of certain kinds of objects. It
should be noted that "<" should implement a total ordering for this to
be consistent, e.g. not just a poset. This is related to a debate
about whether "<" should g
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Ben Edwards wrote:
> As I am working on patching this, I wonder if we shouldn't have an API
> change in sage. Currently several functions, namely cliques_number_of
> take a 'with_labels' argument as a Bool to determine whether a
> dictionary of values is returned
On 07/24/10 10:41 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:24 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 24 July 2010 09:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I like "Published" and "Shared" better.
I think the issue I have with "published", which someone else in this
thread first mentioned months ago,
Take for example the following code:
sage: f = {0:1}
sage: for n in range(100): f[n+1] = sqrt(2.0)**f[n]
sage: line([(n,f[n]) for n in range(50,100)])
Then on the y-Axis every tick number is "2e" except the topmost is
"2".
One can not distinguish y values by their displayed numbers.
Another plot
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:24 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 24 July 2010 09:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:20 AM, David Kirkby
>> wrote:
>
>>> http://server/demonstations/number_theory
>>> http://server/demonstations/linear_algebra
>>> http://server/demonstations/plott
On 24 July 2010 09:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:20 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>> http://server/demonstations/number_theory
>> http://server/demonstations/linear_algebra
>> http://server/demonstations/plotting
>>
>> in a similar way to what you suggested above with
>>
>>
On 24 July 2010 07:13, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> We should do this as part of the tests, collect timing data on each
>> test block (and perhaps even each line?). There have been vague plans
>> to do this for a while, and I thought about wai
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:20 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 24 July 2010 08:04, William Stein wrote:
>
>> The design of this "publish/share" aspect of the Sage notebook is
>> nearly an exact clone of Google docs "publish/share", at least circa
>> 2007. The one difference is that google docs doesn
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Afif wrote:
> In the discussion I linked to, they actually discuss how the source
> wasn't easily available initially due to hosting issues-- the project
> head would send it to whoever asked for it. It's still not very easy
> to find (they mentioned working on tha
On 24 July 2010 08:04, William Stein wrote:
> The design of this "publish/share" aspect of the Sage notebook is
> nearly an exact clone of Google docs "publish/share", at least circa
> 2007. The one difference is that google docs doesn't have a way to
> browse the list of published documents --
The vertices() method for graphs says the resulting list is always
sorted. But while you can use a variety of objects as the vertices of
a graph (very nice), they do not always compare cleanly (not so
nice). So I got bit tonight on a doctest where one vertex was an
integer and one was a symbolic
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Thierry Dumont
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am not sur to understand if cython can manage callbacks. The documentation
> do not say many things about this (or I could not find it).
>
> I want to interface ODEs solvers, and I would like to do it with cython.
> o, if I wa
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:21 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 15 July 2010 22:15, Carl Witty wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
>>> One very simple change might be easier to implement/use. How about if
>>> there were both a "share" button and a "publish" button, and these
35 matches
Mail list logo
