On Jan 2, 10:11 pm, Eviatar wrote:
> Sorry for bumping, but is there any news on this? I would be willing
> to assist with the translation aspects.
Don't say sorry! Thanks for the bump, as I had totally missed about
half this thread, since I was doing some other things about the time
of most of
I'd like to point out that using Wolfram|Alpha is also advantageous
because an answer can be verified much faster than with Mathematica.
As well, Wolfram|Alpha should be the same for all testers at any given
time, while Mathematica versions may be different.
--
To post to this group, send an emai
Sorry for bumping, but is there any news on this? I would be willing
to assist with the translation aspects.
On Nov 4 2010, 1:23 pm, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> Dear John, dear all,
>
> > >> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:51:27 +0100
> > >> From: John Cremona
> > >> With a few (preferably na
This is not sage-flame
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 01/ 2/11 08:34 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/ 2/11 04:31 PM, rjf wrote:
>
Though it does surprise me that they bothered to respond.
On 01/ 2/11 08:34 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
On 01/ 2/11 04:31 PM, rjf wrote:
Though it does surprise me that they bothered to respond.
They are in general more polite& constructive than you.
And more professional.
Yes, I agree w
tdumont,
> I am supposed to speak about numerics in Sage. I'll speak about what
> exists nowadays, but I would like to know if there are currently
> projects, developments (if any), in this field of Numerical methods.
>
Sage includes the Numpy and Scipy packages, both of which perform numeric
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 01/ 2/11 04:31 PM, rjf wrote:
>> You only have to deal with Univ. Washington or some place that
>> installed Mathematica.
>
> You need to have access to Mathematica, which is not the same thing as your
> university having it installed
On 01/ 2/11 04:31 PM, rjf wrote:
Wolfram has given you permission to do what they already gave you
permission to do.
I would tend to agree, but then there are are some words in the terms and
conditions would could be interpreted as now allowing this use. Personally I
tended to agree, but Ale
Thanks to everyone. Thanks Robert for taking the time to explain it
all - you have put it very clearly!
--
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 gro
Wolfram has given you permission to do what they already gave you
permission to do.
You can type in an expression (either directly to W|A or via a link)
and look at the answer. They can't stop you if you compare it to the
answer from Sage.
You could use it in debugging some Sage code, perhaps. Y
On 01/ 2/11 05:45 AM, Timothy Clemans wrote:
Wow that's nice of them. I'm amazed they replied let alone grant you
permission.
Actually, I've dealt with Wolfram Research a number of times over the years, and
always found them helpful. That has included Wolfram Research staff answering
question
On 01/ 2/11 06:24 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
You may recall some discussions some time ago about using WolframAlpha to
make comparisons with Sage results. Alex Ghitza in particular thought we
might be breaking the terms of the usage. I aske
As far as the mwrank directory is concerned, it could easily be got
rid of. mwrank (and eclib generally) has a habit of writing to a file
called PRIMES so as to keep large and/or interesting primes from one
run to the next. I could easily recode eclib so that it never creates
a file, only uses on
13 matches
Mail list logo
