> Math presumably not Computer Science.
>
> Does Math directorate pay for programmers to write open-source versions
> of commercial software?
It is under the NSF-OCI soliciation which is software in any area
(biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, math, ...). We were not planning
to ask for a
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29817519
>
When I saw the title of the article I was sure it was going to say that
checking Sudoku solutions with Sage helps ward off dementia...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubsc
>
>
>> Does Math directorate pay for programmers to write open-source versions
> of commercial software?
>
> Or are these topics designating novel algorithms and data structures?
>
>
Take a look at the list below and decide for yourself. There will always
be mathematics not yet implemented in
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 4:42:54 PM UTC-7, Anne Schilling wrote:
>
> Dear All!
>
> Dan Bump, Ben Salisbury, Mark Shimozono and I are planning to apply
> for an NSF grant for Sage (to fund Sage Days and other Sage related
> activities).
Math presumably not Computer Science.
Does Math di
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29817519
--
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 group, send em
I uninstalled homebrew and tried again, the build was successful.
I will now build sage-6.4.rc0. Thank you for making this work!
2014-10-29 15:07:19 UTC+1, Volker Braun:
>
> Gcc picks up parts of your homebrew install, you must at least rename
> /usr/local before you can build anything with homeb
On Oct 30, 2014 5:26 AM, "kcrisman" wrote:
>
> Ordinarily I'd be against this sort of thing, but I agree that this
concept has not proved to be useful - any given maintainer rarely actually
does keep up with things for more than a year or two, though in aggregate
the community does pretty well wit
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:23:57 PM UTC, kcrisman wrote:
>
> So "OSX 10.6 (Snow Leopard) 64-bit, with XCode 3. Tested on bsd" is no
> longer accurate?
>
Yes, no longer accurate since the bsd.math machine died.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
See below for a posting about a job opportunity involving open source
tools for scientific computing.
Thanks,
Jason
Original Message
Subject:[Numpy-discussion] [ANN - JOB] Assistant Researcher - Berkeley
Institute for Data Science
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:15:51 -0
Ordinarily I'd be against this sort of thing, but I agree that this concept
has not proved to be useful - any given maintainer rarely actually does
keep up with things for more than a year or two, though in aggregate the
community does pretty well with many of them.
I think that the concept of
> I can't even test tickets on OSX without the gcc update, because our only
> buildbot is running on 10.10.
>
> IMHO the only thing that CAN wait is beautification of the scripts or
> repacking the gcc tarball to save some disk space...
>
>
So "OSX 10.6 (Snow Leopard) 64-bit, with XCode 3. Test
On 2014-10-30 09:53, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote:
I think what is really missing from Sage is "bug-fix-only" releases,
where no new functionality is added - only bugs fixed.
Which problem would this solve? It would certainly add a considerable
cost to the release management so
How hard would it be to switch from the singular interface to the MAcualay2
one for the polynomial stuff?
If we can do that, we could automate an extra pass of the testsuite
consisting on comparing the output from one interface to the other.
>
> Many people doing algebraic geometry research use
On 29 Oct 2014 14:54, "Jakob Kroeker" wrote:
> In fact, in particular cases active testing was already done by some Sage
developers,
> which (I do not know this) probably were not explicitly paid for that
task.
I have certainly fed random inputs to sage and found some that would crash
it. At lea
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 07:09:53PM -0700, Andrew wrote:
>I agree with Dima in that it would be great to have some of the basic
>ring theory available in improved. There are some basic deficiencies
>with (Laurent) polynomial rings, especially in more than one variable
>and it would g
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
I suggest to think about offering bounties for new reported bugs
When having a course of mathematical software, the teacher could give some
extra point to those who report [new] bugs.
--
Jori Mäntysalo
--
You received this message because you are s
16 matches
Mail list logo
