# In The Name of God #
?!
Please help me how should I pass this error and install Sage? Any other
useful comment would be appreciated...
How did you setup your repository /root/svmh/sage for the installation ?
First of all it is not a good idea to use /root/ for Sage install
(either
The Search box on the Trac webpage is broken: any kind of search (for
example http://trac.sagemath.org/search?q=foo gives
Trac detected an internal error:
ProgrammingError: relation revision does not exist
LINE 3: FROM revision WHERE (rev ILIKE '%foo%' E...
FWIW the problem (or a slight variant of it) is known in complexity
theory as learning of monotone boolean functions. To translate your
problem to this language, you have to consider your sets as subsets of a
common large set with n elements and describe the subsets by n-tuples.
Of course, you
Ok, it should be fixed now. I disabled version control since we shouldn't
be using it anymore (finger's crossed that doesn't break something else
that I missed).
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be
wrote:
The Search box on the Trac webpage is broken: any kind
Yoo !
FWIW the problem (or a slight variant of it) is known in complexity theory
as learning of monotone boolean functions. To translate your problem to
this
language, you have to consider your sets as subsets of a common large set
with n elements and describe the subsets by n-tuples.
On 2014-09-14, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
You can also think of your NO sets as a set of SAT clauses of the form
!x_{i_1} || !x_{i_2} || ... || !x_{i_m},
and all of them should hold true.
Indeed, but in order to do that I would need to enumerate them all.
In this language,
Hi!
On trac http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16813 Ralf Stephan and I come to
the question which representation of legendre_Q and gen_legendre_Q is
better suited,
since it is not unique due to the complex logarithm.
We have several choices to represent the logorithm appering in the formula
of
Yo !
In this language, your code enumerates true/false assigments to the variables
x_j, so that all these NO clauses hold true.
These NO clauses are just an encoding of your matrix of NOs that I
understood
you write out completely. But now you write that you can't do this.
Oh well.
Yes,
On 2014-09-15, Travis Scrimshaw tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
But the fact remains that Lisp is quite an obscure languge.
I'm not sure what you mean by obscure --- I'll assume that you are just
observing that
most programmers are unfamiliar with it. They are instead familiar with
C, Java,
On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:31:53 AM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Yo !
In this language, your code enumerates true/false assigments to the
variables
x_j, so that all these NO clauses hold true.
These NO clauses are just an encoding of your matrix of NOs that I
understood
Let me add that numeric results from mpmath also use #2.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
Yo !
I see. By the way, there is an approach to do this using ILP. At some
point
you have a 0-1 LP with NO sets generated so far as inequalities (and
other inequalities that cut out the solutions found so far)
I.e. if {j_1,...,j_m} is a NO-set then the corresponding inequality is
On Monday, September 15, 2014 10:15:10 AM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Yo !
I see. By the way, there is an approach to do this using ILP. At some
point
you have a 0-1 LP with NO sets generated so far as inequalities (and
other inequalities that cut out the solutions found so far)
Yo !
1) Make it run in your head with a boolean function f constant to False.
It will enumerate the 2^n no-sets.
corner cases are hard, in theory too :-)
You can certainly add a pre-testing by evaluating f on all singletons and
pairs, say.
(and this would also speed up things for
And maybe I spoke too fast.
The build system of Sage the distribution is not smart enough for sure.
But I seem to remember you may be able to cross compile using lmonade.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this
I have purchased one of these boards:
https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/A20/A20-OLinuXino-LIME/open-source-hardware
And plan to plug in it a ssd drive to allow fast swap space. I would like
to use it to compile sage for raspbian, but there is an issue: the
raspberry pi is ARMv6,
On Monday, September 15, 2014 10:40:31 AM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Yo !
1) Make it run in your head with a boolean function f constant to
False. It will enumerate the 2^n no-sets.
corner cases are hard, in theory too :-)
You can certainly add a pre-testing by evaluating f on
On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:34:35 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
[...] students who were first taught a subset of C++...
Now thats pure evil.
I wouldn't hire somebody who knows only a single programming language no
matter which. Of course if you are proficient in C++ then you know
On Monday, September 15, 2014 12:30:06 PM UTC+2, mmarco wrote:
I have purchased one of these boards:
https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/A20/A20-OLinuXino-LIME/open-source-hardware
And plan to plug in it a ssd drive to allow fast swap space. I would like
to use it to compile sage
Yo !
enumerating inclusion-wise minimal no-sets is not a remedy: if
f =(lambda x: len(x)k) for |X|=2k, you're pretty much
out of luck.
Indeed. But it is much, much, much better in most cases.
we don't need them all, we only need the maximal ones.
LP won't even look at subsets of an already
In this case the list of no-sets is known from the start, and it is
small. And the boolean function can be quickly evaluated. Clearly not
what this function is meant to handle.
The list of *minimal* no-sets. In case you would hold this against me.
Nathann
--
You received this message
But the fact remains that Lisp is quite an obscure languge.
I'm not sure what you mean by obscure --- I'll assume that you are just
observing that
most programmers are unfamiliar with it. They are instead familiar with
C, Java, Basic, (see the tiobe survey).
I wrote a little bit of
On 2014-09-15, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Yo !
enumerating inclusion-wise minimal no-sets is not a remedy: if
f =(lambda x: len(x)k) for |X|=2k, you're pretty much
out of luck.
Indeed. But it is much, much, much better in most cases.
we don't need them all, we only need
you wanted to know a function f that might be harded for your algorithm
vs ILP,
and I give you one, as above. I won't tell you it comes from a graph.
(and I implement it to be very slow on small-size subsets :-))
And I maintain it, but you are not allowed to write a problem-specific LP:
you
Hi!
At #16453, I added counting of paths in quivers (that may be cyclic). I
think the result should be called Poincaré series matrix. But I do not
succeed to get the letter é into the docs. I tried \\'e, assuming
that latex typeset would work, but it doesn't. What shall I do to make
it work?
You can use (La)TeX only in formulae (and don't expect good results
anywhere besides the PDF docs).
In Python docstrings you can use any utf-8, so just typing (or
copy-pasting) é will work.
On Monday, September 15, 2014 4:03:31 PM UTC+1, Simon King wrote:
Hi!
At #16453, I added
Hi Volker,
On 2014-09-15, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
In Python docstrings you can use any utf-8, so just typing (or
copy-pasting) é will work.
With preamble
## -*- encoding: utf-8 -*-
as Nicolas has pointed out on the ticket.
Thank you!
Simon
--
You received this message
A long time ago I did numerical eigenvalue computations using
SLEPC ( see http://www.grycap.upv.es/slepc/ )
There is also Trilinos/Anazazi (I did't use it)
But I was only interested in a part of the spectrum (smallest /largest),
Do you need to compute all eigenvalues?
Maybe (as William said) you
Oh yes, it does matter. These first exposed to an imperative language
are often having difficulties writing functional-style code.
I wish I coded in Lisp rather than in Fortran in my first years as
a programmer.
I'm curious what you think here, for someone to be a good mathematician,
Dear sage-devel,
we all know that deprecations are good when you remove some
functionality (a function, a keyword...). It's not clear to me if there
is any deprecation policy for *changing* functionality.
In this case, I am talking about this functionality:
sage: x = polygen(GF(7))
sage:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
Dear sage-devel,
we all know that deprecations are good when you remove some functionality (a
function, a keyword...). It's not clear to me if there is any deprecation
policy for *changing* functionality.
I think
On 2014-09-15 19:19, William A Stein wrote:
I think it should depend on the documented API.
... the docstring says:
Docstring: Return generator of this finite field as an extension of
its prime field.
Note: If you want a primitive element for this finite field instead,
use
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2014-09-15 19:19, William A Stein wrote:
I think it should depend on the documented API.
... the docstring says:
Docstring: Return generator of this finite field as an extension of
its prime field.
Note: If
IMHO, it's fine to put your code as a constructor in SimplicialComplex.
If you do this, cc me on the ticket, I'll review it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Hi,
I've noticed the following change in simplifications between Sage 6.3 and
preceeding versions:
In Sage 6.2 (and preceeding):
sage: simplify( abs(sqrt(x)) )
sqrt(x)
sage: simplify( abs(1/sqrt(x)) )
1/sqrt(x)
while in Sage 6.3:
sage: simplify( abs(sqrt(x)) )
sqrt(x)
sage: simplify(
Hello,
(on sage-6.4.beta3)
The bug for me would be that abs(sqrt(x)) simplifies to sqrt(x).
But hopefully, the following is coherent
sage: assume(x 0)
sage: abs(1/sqrt(x)).simplify()
1/sqrt(x)
But this one is definitely not
sage: forget()
sage: assume(x 0)
sage: abs(sqrt(x)).simplify()
On Monday, September 15, 2014 3:24:42 PM UTC-4, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed the following change in simplifications between Sage 6.3 and
preceeding versions:
In Sage 6.2 (and preceeding):
sage: simplify( abs(sqrt(x)) )
sqrt(x)
sage: simplify( abs(1/sqrt(x)) )
1/sqrt(x)
37 matches
Mail list logo
