On 11 Dec 2014 17:46, "William Stein" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> SageMathCloud is now completely open source.
Great.
> Question: Why is SMC open source?
>
> Answer: Two of the four NSF grants that very substantially supported
> SMC development had explicit open source requirements.
>
>
> -- William
So
On Thursday, December 11, 2014, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> SageMathCloud is now completely open source.The complete source
> code is here, so if you've ever wondered how something in SMC works,
> you can now find out...
>
> https://github.com/sagemath/cloud
>
> There is also a new dev
Great news! Getting grants that force you to do the project openly is not a
bad thing :-)
Anne
--
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+unsubs
On 2014-12-11, Viviane Pons wrote:
> --001a113db21e2134d40509f7fda9
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2014-12-11 22:46 GMT+01:00 William Stein :
>
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM, maldun wrote:
>> > That's great to hear!
>> >
>> > Although I don't know If GPL3 is the best choice ..
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 09:46:23AM -0800, William Stein wrote:
> SageMathCloud is now completely open source.
William,
For standing by your dreams by this bold move,
I tip my hat, and heartily approve!
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil"
http://Nicolas.Th
2014-12-11 22:46 GMT+01:00 William Stein :
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM, maldun wrote:
> > That's great to hear!
> >
> > Although I don't know If GPL3 is the best choice ...
>
> I actually didn't have an option regarding GPL or not.
>
> > Are there already alternative plans to make funding f
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM, maldun wrote:
> That's great to hear!
>
> Although I don't know If GPL3 is the best choice ...
I actually didn't have an option regarding GPL or not.
> Are there already alternative plans to make funding from SMC, since closed
> Source is not an option anymore?
>
That's great to hear!
Although I don't know If GPL3 is the best choice ...
Are there already alternative plans to make funding from SMC, since closed
Source is not an option anymore?
(I think this topic is important, since resources are a major issue)
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:47:05 PM U
The OSX machine has been donated to the Sage project and will be back in
business as soon as I manage to plug it in. Many thanks to Philip Candelas'
research incentive grant and the Mathematical Institute in Oxford.
On Monday, December 1, 2014 8:39:29 PM UTC, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> As some o
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Christopher Swenson
wrote:
> I would definitely be interested in another SMC Sage Days (or SMC days).
Tentative plan:
Sage Days n on the Open Sourced SageMathCloud - in Seattle Feb 2-7, 2015.
Write to me (wst...@uw.edu) if you're interested in attending. A
I would definitely be interested in another SMC Sage Days (or SMC days).
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Christopher Swenson
> wrote:
> > Awesome! I look forward to poking around.
>
> It won't be easy, since most of the time I've been t
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Christopher Swenson
wrote:
> Awesome! I look forward to poking around.
It won't be easy, since most of the time I've been the only developer
(100% of the time for the backend stuff), so please don't hesitate to
ask questions, since this will help in moving things
Awesome! I look forward to poking around.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> SageMathCloud is now completely open source.The complete source
>> code is here, so if you've ever wondered how something in SMC works,
>> you can now find out...
>>
>> https://github.com/sag
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> SageMathCloud is now completely open source.The complete source
>> code is here, so if you've ever wondered how something in SMC works,
>> you can now find out...
>>
>> https://github.com/sagemath/cloud
>>
>> There is also a new devel
>
>
> SageMathCloud is now completely open source.The complete source
> code is here, so if you've ever wondered how something in SMC works,
> you can now find out...
>
> https://github.com/sagemath/cloud
>
> There is also a new developer mailing list:
>
>https://groups.google.com
>
> Your feeling that this came up recently is correct:
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/HBjXA_-lyK0/discussion
>
Aagh! I tried to hard to be careful. Sorry :(
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from
Congratulations. Lifechanging news, we will come to realise.
Regards,
Jan
On 11 December 2014 at 19:46, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> SageMathCloud is now completely open source.The complete source
> code is here, so if you've ever wondered how something in SMC works,
> you can now find ou
Hi,
SageMathCloud is now completely open source.The complete source
code is here, so if you've ever wondered how something in SMC works,
you can now find out...
https://github.com/sagemath/cloud
There is also a new developer mailing list:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!
We've included dev releases before into Sage, and having closer to
out-of-the-box support for Cygwin64 gets a +1 from me.
Best,
Travis
PS - I should have some time to look again at Cygwin stuff soon.
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:37:33 AM UTC-8, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday,
On 2014-12-11 17:55:42 UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
>
> http://www.sagemath.org/src-old/ is not up to date. I ran across this at
> http://ask.sagemath.org/question/25189/cannot-allocate-memory/ but I
> can't shake the feeling that this came up on one of these lists, my
> apologies if it did (I did
http://www.sagemath.org/src-old/ is not up to date. I ran across this
at http://ask.sagemath.org/question/25189/cannot-allocate-memory/ but I
can't shake the feeling that this came up on one of these lists, my
apologies if it did (I did do a fairly thorough search).
Anyway, it would be good to
>
> Has anybody written code to compute the list of all names (with dots)
> in a running Python session?
> I mean take globals() and do dir on everything, and do dir on all of
> that, etc., up to either some time
> limit or depth limit. That list would then get stored and used for
> implemen
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:53 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> http://librestats.com/2014/12/10/a-did-you-mean-feature-for-r/
>
>
> Interesting. Note that Maxima already has something similar "standard" as
> well as a "other related results" feature, at least when you ask for help.
Has anybody written co
> http://librestats.com/2014/12/10/a-did-you-mean-feature-for-r/
>
>
Interesting. Note that Maxima already has something similar "standard" as
well as a "other related results" feature, at least when you ask for help.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou
Dear all,
As I have mentioned before, there will be some Sage Days during the next
PyCon in Montreal:
PyCon: April 8-16, 2015
Sage-Days 67: April 13-16, 2015 (during PyCon sprints)
You can find all needed informations here: http://wiki.sagemath.org/days67
Important deadline: financial aid appli
http://librestats.com/2014/12/10/a-did-you-mean-feature-for-r/
- William Stein (cell phone)
--
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...
> well, such methods should be moved to "UnderlyingSimpleGraph"...
Not all of them. Some methods will not work at all on graphs with
loops (err. should not, for the users would expect something different
than what is actually done).
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribe
On 11 December 2014 at 14:43, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> Very few methods? Why?
>> All these subclasses can derive from something like "UnderlyingSimpleGraph",
>> where one can put all things that make sense, like connectivity
>> questions, induced
>> subgraphs, etc.
>
> Well, you will miss all metho
Yooo !
> More difficult is to optimize product() or ordinal_sum() etc.
>
> And impossible, I think, is to optimize mobius_function_matrix, because one
> can not know if it has already been calculated or not. Or maybe with
> test with definition of mobius_function?
I don't know Is it very
> Very few methods? Why?
> All these subclasses can derive from something like "UnderlyingSimpleGraph",
> where one can put all things that make sense, like connectivity
> questions, induced
> subgraphs, etc.
Well, you will miss all methods that are defined on simple graphs...
The point is that if
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 6:39:13 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
> And I forgot http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17365 and
> http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15649 which need a little love (and as it
> only affects Cygwin should be easy to review, at least if you trust me)!!!
>
In add
On 11 December 2014 at 09:19, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> I think object oriented programming is the right tool to handle such
>> issues, and well, Python is object oriented!
>
> You seem to address a problem different than mine. You want to split the
> graph class into something like
>
> LoopedGraph
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Well, you can "cheat" already:
1) Create the poset P
2) Compute the meet M/join matrix J
3) P._meet = M; P._join = J
4) LatticePoset(P) should not recompute them.
True! That would be easy one.
More difficult is to optimize product() or ordinal_sum()
Hello !
Some poset functions return a lattice if argument[s] are lattices, for
> example dual() and product(). Now, it makes no sense to recompute meet and
> join matrices from the resulting poset. If LatticePoset would define those
> functions, it could compute matrices easily.
>
Well, you ca
> So, you suggest that if the user wants a plain non-multi-non-loopy-graph,
> then it is not needed to provide multiedges=False? Since most people are
> happy with plain graphs, it sounds reasonable to me to have that be the
> default.
Yep, that is the aim. Plus it is already the current 'default'
Hi Nathann,
On 2014-12-11, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Well I would not want to make Graph() invalid by requiring every
> call to specific explicitly Graph(multiedges=False,loops=False), so I
> attempted to make it "only a bit more mandatory" by leading users of
> Graph(list_of_edges_with_repetiti
Hello,
> I think object oriented programming is the right tool to handle such
> issues, and well, Python is object oriented!
You seem to address a problem different than mine. You want to split the
graph class into something like
LoopedGraph
SimpleGraph
LoopedMultiGraph
MultiGraph
That would le
Just throwing an idea for someone, not going to make this myself in near
future:
Some poset functions return a lattice if argument[s] are lattices, for
example dual() and product(). Now, it makes no sense to recompute meet and
join matrices from the resulting poset. If LatticePoset would defin
Hi,
I think object oriented programming is the right tool to handle such
issues, and well, Python is object oriented! Currently, there is a single
class of graphs with flags and tests (to be honest, there also exists a
BipartiteGraph class).
Some methods only work (sometimes even only make sense)
Just to say that the ticket is still waiting for a review. Nobody is
feeling entitled to review that patch, and I cannot review it myself
:-P
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receivin
40 matches
Mail list logo
