David Roe writes:
> http://wstein.org/home/keshav/files/speaklater-1.2-fbc7a37.spkg
I've upgraded to 1.3 which was released two days ago on my request. It
contains a fix for a problem which was noticed in sagenb last year. The
first SPKG I made used a development version of the code (commit fbc7a
William Stein writes:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM, John H Palmieri
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:55:21 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> The new doctesting code (#12415) needs a change to the way Sage handles
>>> temporary files, which is described at #131
David Roe writes:
> Hi everyone,
> The new doctesting code (#12415) needs a change to the way Sage handles
> temporary files, which is described at #13147. We can either
> 1. change every use of temporary files within the sage library, or
> 2. depend on the speaklater project and use a lazy strin
Dear All,
Today I was trying to compute some stuff using modular symbols. And I found
the following slightly worrying:
sage: M=ModularSymbols(Gamma1(22),sign=1)
sage: S=M.cuspidal_submodule();S
Modular Symbols subspace of dimension 6 of Modular Symbols space of dimension
25 for Gamma_1(22) of w
Le mardi 3 juillet 2012 13:12:43 UTC-4, Javier López Peña a écrit :
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 5:21:53 PM UTC+1, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> You don't have to re-generate the entire matrix, you could likely get
>> away with changing one random element at a time. (And if you did
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Javier López Peña wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 5:21:53 PM UTC+1, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> You don't have to re-generate the entire matrix, you could likely get
>> away with changing one random element at a time. (And if you did so,
>> perh
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 11:45:11 AM UTC-7, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 11:33 , John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:55:21 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >> The new doctesting code (#12415) needs a change to the way Sage
>
>
> >> Everyone working on the ticket thinks option 2 is the way to go.
> >> Speaklater consists of a single python file and is already used in the
> new
> >> flask notebook (#11080) by including the python file. Rather than
> introduce
> >> a strange dependency of sage on the notebook or
On Jul 3, 2012, at 11:33 , John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:55:21 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>> The new doctesting code (#12415) needs a change to the way Sage handles
>> temporary files, which is described at #13147. We can either
>> 1. change ever
On Jul 3, 2012, at 11:08 , William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM, David Roe wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> The new doctesting code (#12415) needs a change to the way Sage handles
>> temporary files, which is described at #13147. We can either
>> 1. change every use of temporary file
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:55:21 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>> The new doctesting code (#12415) needs a change to the way Sage handles
>> temporary files, which is described at #13147. We can either
>> 1. change eve
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:55:21 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
> The new doctesting code (#12415) needs a change to the way Sage handles
> temporary files, which is described at #13147. We can either
> 1. change every use of temporary files within the sage library, or
> 2. depend
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM, David Roe wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> The new doctesting code (#12415) needs a change to the way Sage handles
> temporary files, which is described at #13147. We can either
> 1. change every use of temporary files within the sage library, or
> 2. depend on the speakla
Hi everyone,
The new doctesting code (#12415) needs a change to the way Sage handles
temporary files, which is described at #13147. We can either
1. change every use of temporary files within the sage library, or
2. depend on the speaklater project and use a lazy string.
Everyone working on the t
Hi Robert,
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 5:21:53 PM UTC+1, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> You don't have to re-generate the entire matrix, you could likely get
> away with changing one random element at a time. (And if you did so,
> perhaps computing the rank would be cheaper). Still, +1 to it's much
>
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:55:54 UTC+8, Javier López Peña wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:53:23 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>>
>>> well, it's not that small, especially for finite fields. E.g. for F_2 and
>>> n=3, one
Opening a ticket with a patch, then...
Charles
2012/7/3 Dima Pasechnik :
>
>
> On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 21:20:16 UTC+8, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 03 Jul 2012, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:55:54 UTC+8, Javier López Peña wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, July 3, 201
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 21:20:16 UTC+8, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday 03 Jul 2012, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:55:54 UTC+8, Javier López Peña wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:53:23 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > >> well, it's not that small, espe
For comparison: PLE decomposition needs 2.8 multiplications if asymptotically
fast multiplication is used and 0.66 if cubic multiplication is used, cf.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.5717.pdf
On Tuesday 03 Jul 2012, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 20:22:37 UTC+8, Martin Albrecht wro
On Tuesday 03 Jul 2012, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:55:54 UTC+8, Javier López Peña wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:53:23 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> >> well, it's not that small, especially for finite fields. E.g. for F_2
> >> and n=3, one only gets 168 invertib
Yes, definitely spam.
My fault for approving the membership but i got no email moderating the
post.
How did that email get through?
I thought first posts were moderated.
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to
> sage-devel@googlegroups.co
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 20:22:37 UTC+8, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell all methods need matrix multiplication, so whatever
> choice me make the difference will be constant, i.e., how many
> matrix-matrix
> products we need (assuming asymptotically fast techniques were
> imple
As far as I can tell all methods need matrix multiplication, so whatever
choice me make the difference will be constant, i.e., how many matrix-matrix
products we need (assuming asymptotically fast techniques were implemented)
On Tuesday 03 Jul 2012, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 July 201
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:55:54 UTC+8, Javier López Peña wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:53:23 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> well, it's not that small, especially for finite fields. E.g. for F_2 and
>> n=3, one only gets 168 invertible matrices out of 512=2^9 in total...
>> (
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:53:23 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> well, it's not that small, especially for finite fields. E.g. for F_2 and
> n=3, one only gets 168 invertible matrices out of 512=2^9 in total...
> (I can't resist saying that the order of GL(n,q) is
> (q^n-1)(q^{n-1}-1)...(q
>
--
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.sagemath.org
Hello there,
How’re you doing?
Oh! I’ve just begun writing blogs you know, and it seems really interesting
to reach out to the world audience at large and gather opinion.
You could call me a beginner but do let me know your inputs / feedback /
comments on my pages… please.
~~~***~~~
Pi
On 2012-07-02 19:17, Benjamin Jones wrote:
> But seriously, has anyone thought about applying for access to the GCC
> compile farm [1] ? It looks like they will give shell access accounts
> to developers working on free software projects (GPL, BSD, MIT, .. )
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Compile
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 17:45:52 UTC+8, Javier López Peña wrote:
>
> I know little of random methods, but do we really need to make things so
> complicated? As the OP suggests, we might as well just generate matrices
> uniformly at random and discard if not invertible. The set of invertible
>
I know little of random methods, but do we really need to make things so
complicated? As the OP suggests, we might as well just generate matrices
uniformly at random and discard if not invertible. The set of invertible
matrices is Zariski open, so the probability of hitting a non-invertible
mat
See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12970
--
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:
On 2012-07-03 11:38, Goutam Paul wrote:
> Please help.
>
> The compilation / installation failed.
This is a known problem when building MPIR with SAGE_CHECK=yes.
You should build MPIR without SAGE_CHECK enabled.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscri
32 matches
Mail list logo
