[sage-devel] Linear Algebra thematic tutorial

2012-06-02 Thread Jason Grout
Hi everyone, Rob (Beezer), Robert (Bradshaw), William, and I have been working on an introduction for linear algebra for the next edition of CRC's Handbook of Linear Algebra. The publisher has agreed that a version of the final article will be licensed CC-by so that we can include it in our o

Re: [sage-devel] Sage (tm)

2012-06-02 Thread Fernando Perez
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > It's also much > better to make it official now, when ownership is not being > questioned, than at some later date when it is needed. Take that lesson from us, it's indeed *much* better, I can guarantee you. Cheers, f -- To post to this

Re: [sage-devel] Sage (tm)

2012-06-02 Thread Robert Bradshaw
Letting UW register and own the trademark adds legitimacy to the (threat of) litigation, without which the trademark is useless (if you don't defend it, you loose it). What can we do about sagetrac.org? We can complain to them (they'll ignore it). We can threaten to sue (the'll probably ignore that

Re: [sage-devel] Gap packages

2012-06-02 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Saturday, 2 June 2012 14:18:08 UTC+2, David Joyner wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 2, 2012, mmarco wrote: > >> If the maintainers of the gap_packages spkg agree, i would propose to >> include in it as many gap packages as possible. We could email the >> authors of the packages asking them for

Re: [sage-devel] Sage (tm)

2012-06-02 Thread David Joyner
On Friday, June 1, 2012, William Stein wrote: > > > On Friday, June 1, 2012, Michael Orlitzky > > > wrote: > > On 06/01/12 02:05, Martin Albrecht wrote: > >> > >> Secondly, it shouldn't be a problem but to verify: having a trademark > on the > >> name does not present a problem for being included

Re: [sage-devel] Gap packages

2012-06-02 Thread David Joyner
On Saturday, June 2, 2012, mmarco wrote: > If the maintainers of the gap_packages spkg agree, i would propose to > include in it as many gap packages as possible. We could email the > authors of the packages asking them for permission to distribute them > under the GPL and include all the packages

[sage-devel] Re: How to simplify a symbolic expression without losing precision?

2012-06-02 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Sunday, 13 May 2012 11:49:26 UTC+2, AleXoundOS wrote: > > Hello. > > I've already asked this question in irc, but there I was redirected > here. > For example I need higher precision than 53 bits. Here is just a > simple example of losing precision after using simplify_full() > > R = Real

[sage-devel] Re: Gap packages

2012-06-02 Thread mmarco
If the maintainers of the gap_packages spkg agree, i would propose to include in it as many gap packages as possible. We could email the authors of the packages asking them for permission to distribute them under the GPL and include all the packages whose authors agree. -- To post to this group,

[sage-devel] Re: How to simplify a symbolic expression without losing precision?

2012-06-02 Thread AleXoundOS
Thank you for the advice. I needed to rewrite some code and to create a function that substitutes all the variables I needed. I think that this issue must be described in documentation. Because for a newcomer it's not trivial to do all calculations symbolically and substitute variables when showing