Ah, so not Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand then...
On Sunday, 19 February 2017 13:59:14 UTC+11, kcrisman wrote:
>
> For those who are true board game geeks (of which I know a number on this
> list):
>
> https://boardgamegeek.com/microbadge/9453
>
> I have no idea who the creator is, but hats off!
>
-
could it be that you did install database_gap, but no gap_packages?
We probably only tested them together...
--
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-d
Dear all,
I am surprised by
sage: bool(I < 1)
True
Best Daniel
--
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 po
Indeed, I didn't install gap_packages. I'll install it and retest later
this afternoon...
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
Le 19 févr. 2017 12:55, "Dima Pasechnik" a écrit :
> could it be that you did install database_gap, but no gap_packages?
> We probably only tested them together...
>
> --
> You rec
Le dimanche 19 février 2017 12:58:40 UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier a écrit :
>
> Indeed, I didn't install gap_packages. I'll install it and retest later
> this afternoon...
>
Alas... It's worse :
--
sage -t --long src/sage/coding/l
It might be comparing the real parts. What did you expect? Perhaps
Error "<" requires that both operands be members of the same ordered field
??
Or perhaps just
False
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 3:56:49 AM UTC-8, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am surprised by
> sage: bool(I <
We generally made everything comparable -- NOT mathematically -- in
Sage, so e.g., one could meaningful and in a well defined way sort the
list of eigenvalues of a matrix, etc., etc.
However, I think when we switch to Python3, we'll likely change this
and raise a lot of errors, or so I hear... A
In my opinion not this only particular case but the current bool() design
in sage is a tremendous failure.
This was already discussed on sage-devel several times.
Here is one of that threads:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/vNxnHSeRBW4/UkaBOPGYT0QJ
Jakob
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2017
Your log contains a lot of stuff like
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'NoneType' and 'int'
verbose 0 (2059: permgroup_named.py, cardinality) Warning:
TransitiveGroups requires the GAP database package. Please i
That log is attached to the first message of this thread. BTW, it is
suspiciously short...
Should I try to force a reinstallation ?
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
Le dimanche 19 février 2017 19:37:08 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
>
> Your log contains a lot of stuff like
>
> TypeError: unsupport
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 6:42:07 PM UTC, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>
> That log is attached to the first message of this thread. BTW, it is
> suspiciously short...
>
looks good to me.
>
> Should I try to force a reinstallation ?
>
well, I guess, yes, followed by "make build" just i
Le dimanche 19 février 2017 19:54:06 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 6:42:07 PM UTC, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>>
>> That log is attached to the first message of this thread. BTW, it is
>> suspiciously short...
>>
>
> looks good to me.
>
>
>>
>> Should
Le dimanche 19 février 2017 20:34:57 UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier a écrit :
>
>
>
> Le dimanche 19 février 2017 19:54:06 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 6:42:07 PM UTC, Emmanuel Charpentier
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That log is attached to the first message of
no clever idea. Can it be that your branch is screwed up somehow?
You can check that the sage 7.6.beta4 branch works with database_gap
installed (it does for me, on more than one host,
and I presume for other people anb bots too),
really make sure that you're on the correct branch,
then bisect y
there could also (potentially) be old (lib)GAP workspace files in
~/.sage/gap/
you might want to remove them
(they are automatically regenerated, but it goes wrong in some obscure
corner cases...)
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:29:42 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> no clever idea. Can it be
There are a whole bunch of issues raised in the context of bool(x>0) and
some mention of what
Maxima does, in that thread from 4 years ago.
But the description of what Maxima* actually does* was essentially missing
from the discussion.
As is often the case when several different conflicting o
On 02/14/2017 10:32 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 02/14/2017 10:19 AM, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> Add explicit imports to the test, for example:
>>
>> ...
>
> Same error: name 'foo' is not defined
>
If no one has any idea, I would personally prefer it the next release
didn't break every doctest I
Certainly the design of bool(rel) (where rel compares symbolics) can
be improved, including the interface to Maxima with all its switches,
but this specific case is better solved by moving I out of SR:
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18036
Regards,
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 12:56:49 PM UT
On 2017-01-26 10:18, Daniel Krenn wrote:
Starting a patchbot results in the error below. Any ideas?
This issue makes it *impossible* for me to run a patchbot.
If anybody is able to fix this, please do so.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-deve
On 2017-02-19 18:01, William Stein wrote:
We generally made everything comparable -- NOT mathematically -- in
Sage, so e.g., one could meaningful and in a well defined way sort the
list of eigenvalues of a matrix, etc., etc.
This thread is about *symbolic* inequalities, which is a different iss
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 08:32:18AM +0100, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2017-01-26 10:18, Daniel Krenn wrote:
> >Starting a patchbot results in the error below. Any ideas?
>
> This issue makes it *impossible* for me to run a patchbot.
>
> If anybody is able to fix this, please do so.
What happ
On 2017-02-19 12:56, Daniel Krenn wrote:
> I am surprised by
> sage: bool(I < 1)
> True
Just to be clear, we are talking about comparison in number fields:
sage: i = I.pyobject()
sage: R = i.parent()
sage: R
Number Field in I with defining polynomial x^2 + 1
sage: i < R(1)
True
--
You re
On 2017-02-19 17:57, rjf wrote:
> It might be comparing the real parts. What did you expect? Perhaps
> Error "<" requires that both operands be members of the same ordered
> field ??
> Or perhaps just
> False
I, for sure, did not expect "True".
--
You received this message because you are su
23 matches
Mail list logo
