Re: [sage-devel] Quadratic forms from genus invariants

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Watson Ladd wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm currently working on writing some python that can produce a quadratic > form from genus invariants. I've already implemented the rational invariants > case, and would be willing to put it into Sage at

Re: [sage-devel] Giving Sage AI-based step-by-step equation solving abilities

Regarding mathematics students just using matching... Yes, I think that most students want to just get a passing grade, and then do something else with their lives. As my wife said, the day after she retired, "See, I never used cosine". There is another theme emerging here, which is that if all

[sage-devel] Quadratic forms from genus invariants

Dear all, I'm currently working on writing some python that can produce a quadratic form from genus invariants. I've already implemented the rational invariants case, and would be willing to put it into Sage at some point. For the genus invariants I need to do variable substitutions on

Re: [sage-devel] Milestones

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: As far as I know, the only real use-case for milestone is a milestone like `sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix` or `sage-pending`. I think that every milestone of the form `sage-X.Y` is essentially treated equivalently. I normally use "sage-N" and mark

Re: [sage-devel] Milestones

I don't really use the milestones except for the sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix which indicates that there is nothing to merge. We don't really use trac for roadmap planning so there is no real significance to milestones, I guess. On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 4:07:06 PM UTC+2, Jeroen

Re: [sage-devel] Milestones

On 2016-10-14 16:23, Erik Bray wrote: sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix is a terrible "milestone" and I wouldn't mind getting rid of that too. That's a resolution status for an issue, not project goal. Normal non-admin users cannot set a resolution, but they can set a milestone. -- You

[sage-devel] NTL 1v0.1.0

I just uploaded NTL v10.1.0. After much foot dragging, and with the help and encouragement of folks here at sage-devel, I've finally got around to making (nearly) all of the packaging/build features that were requested. The big ones are locally generated libtool and $(MAKE). I did not implement

Re: [sage-devel] Milestones

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > As far as I know, the only real use-case for milestone is a milestone like > `sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix` or `sage-pending`. I think that every Well I'm not sure how you're defining "real use-case".

Re: [sage-devel] Milestones

As far as I know, the only real use-case for milestone is a milestone like `sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix` or `sage-pending`. I think that every milestone of the form `sage-X.Y` is essentially treated equivalently. So, we might as well git rid of the `sage-X.Y` milestones completely. But the

[sage-devel] Milestones

On Trac, the milestone sage-7.3, which as been "completed", still has 193 "active" tickets (some of which haven't seen any activity on them in years other than steadily bumping their milestone. Anyone who's worked on a decent-sized project has had this problem before, and it's completely

Re: [sage-devel] Giving Sage AI-based step-by-step equation solving abilities

Ted Kosan writes: > Unfortunately, what most mathematics teachers are teaching is not > mathematics. This observation is described well by Scott Gray ... Indeed, I'm sure there's many examples of such teaching going on, and it is important to try to improve this. > High school mathematics

Re: [sage-devel] Giving Sage AI-based step-by-step equation solving abilities

On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 4:49:38 AM UTC, tkosan wrote: > > Johan wrote: > > > As William stated, I think any functionality improving SageMath's appeal > > for, say, educating high school students would be very welcome. My main > > concern is how valuable what you propose with PRESS-like

[sage-devel] Re: Finite fields coercion bug

Hello, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 9:59:50 PM UTC+2, David Roe wrote: > > In order to create finite fields with arbitrary variable names that fit > into a lattice of fields, one possibility would be able to give an > algebraic closure explicitly as an argument to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Finite fields coercion bug

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 9:59:50 PM UTC+2, David Roe wrote: > > > In order to create finite fields with arbitrary variable names that fit > into a lattice of fields, one possibility would be able to give an > algebraic closure explicitly as an argument to GF. Is that what you're >