Dear sage-devel,
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16004 is ready for review. Please test!
This update for Sage notebook includes
* javascript default graphics!
* snapshots working again!
Thanks especially to Volker B. and Jonathan G. for a lot of work making the
jsmol work inside of Sage, lo
On Monday, October 27, 2014 2:33:34 PM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> The you can just as well get rid of @cached_method, that of course also
> solves the problem.
>
Note quite, thanks to http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16316 , which
basically implements the scheme Robert proposes and uses that
On Monday, October 27, 2014 8:13:29 PM UTC, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> (parent(a), a) rather than just a. I would even consider making
> elements by default unhashable by default, and one would have to write
> cache[a.key()] or cache[a.isomorphic_key()] to use them as keys.
The you can just as
On Monday, October 27, 2014 1:13:29 PM UTC-7, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Currently, the only place preparsing modifies valid code is for
> literals, which is surprising enough but at least easy to explain.
>
There is one more: the "^" -> "**" substitution. Without it I think many
mathematicians
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:32:12 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> I don't think this would be easy to do with the current preparser.
>
> As you said, we'll need to look at the AST. That is part of IPython's
> preprocessing framework, trivia
On Monday, October 27, 2014 6:24:44 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> Are you sure that implementing Buchberger's algorithm would require
> coefficients to occur as *keys*?
>
You need to put the S-polynomials in a hash table for any kind of
reasonable performance.
I agree that this could be fixed b
On Monday, October 27, 2014 10:57:58 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:32:12 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> I don't think this would be easy to do with the current preparser.
>>
>
> As you said, we'll need to look at the AST. That is part of IPython's
> preprocessin
On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:32:12 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> I don't think this would be easy to do with the current preparser.
>
As you said, we'll need to look at the AST. That is part of IPython's
preprocessing framework, trivial to implement.
Furthermore, I think it is a strength of co
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:08:27 PM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>>
>> Python 3 only uses __eq__, __lt__, . Python also provides
>> functools.partial_ordering to synthesizing the remaining methods just from
>> __eq__ and __lt__. We either
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:03:00 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>>
>> On the command line we could bind == to _isomorphic_, but use _identical_
>> in library code. Then we would have intuitive comparison and could still
>> work with associat
On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:03:00 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On the command line we could bind == to _isomorphic_, but use _identical_
> in library code. Then we would have intuitive comparison and could still
> work with associative containers.
>
I don't think this would be easy to do
Hello !
It sounds natural to have BooleanLattice(0) be 1-element lattice, but is
> it normal mathematical definition?
>
Well, I would indeed expect BooleanLattice(0) to have 1 element, but also
expect BooleanLattice(1) to have exactly 2 (against 1 at the moment) O_o
Nathann
--
You received
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:55 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> On 27 October 2014 12:37, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> Yo !
>>
>>> This is good argument to support (only) []-style argument for several
>>> elements. Be consistent within same program. Or in Sage terms, "Build a car,
>>> don't let it look like bi
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Samuel Lelievre wrote:
Here is how I would put it:
- gcd([]) is zero because
zero is the identity element for gcd
(for any x, gcd(0,x) equals x);
Understood. Thanks.
--
Jori Mäntysalo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s
Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Yo !
>
> > This is good argument to support (only) []-style argument for several
> > elements. Be consistent within same program. Or in Sage terms, "Build a
> car,
> > don't let it look like bicycle combined to tractor." :=)
> >
> > Btw, why gcd([]) returns zero? At l
On 27 October 2014 12:37, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Yo !
>
>> This is good argument to support (only) []-style argument for several
>> elements. Be consistent within same program. Or in Sage terms, "Build a car,
>> don't let it look like bicycle combined to tractor." :=)
>>
>> Btw, why gcd([]) return
On 10/25/14, 21:38, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Oct 25, 2014 5:53 PM, "Jason Grout" wrote:
On 10/25/14, 15:04, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
On 10/25/14, 0:07, William Stein wrote:
They are
Yo !
> This is good argument to support (only) []-style argument for several
> elements. Be consistent within same program. Or in Sage terms, "Build a car,
> don't let it look like bicycle combined to tractor." :=)
>
> Btw, why gcd([]) returns zero? At least there is inconsistency with lcm([])
> r
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Nathann Cohen wrote:
sage: gcd([5])
5
sage: gcd([5,7])
1
This is good argument to support (only) []-style argument for several
elements. Be consistent within same program. Or in Sage terms, "Build a
car, don't let it look like bicycle combined to tractor." :=)
Btw, why
Also, this might be a good idea to revisit our abuse of hashing vs.
equality. I'm still very unhappy with us breaking python associative
containers, which really hurts padics and/or caching. We should at least
think about having separate _identical_ vs. _isomorphic_ methods, say,
where only the
bump
On Friday, October 24, 2014 2:39:45 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> I have a working Sage on OSX 10.10. I suggest to release that shortly, in
> case anybody else made the mistake of upgrading soon after the initial
> Yosemite release ;-) Please review
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/query?s
for i in [3,2,1,0]: print Posets.BooleanLattice(i)
prints
Finite lattice containing 8 elements
Finite lattice containing 4 elements
Finite lattice containing 1 elements
Traceback (click to the left of this block for traceback)
It sounds natural to have BooleanLattice(0) be 1-element lattice, bu
22 matches
Mail list logo
