[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

I narrowed it down to a single commit (which turns out to be a single ticket), see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/26929#comment:9 I am unable to debug this further though. Martin Am Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2018 20:57:27 UTC+1 schrieb John H Palmieri: > > What is the extent of the bug? Does i

[sage-devel] problem running Sage-8.4 app on MacOS 10.14, Mojave

Back on Oct 29, I mentioned on ask.sagemath.org a problem running Sage on MacOS 10.14, Mojave . I see now that someone else has responded with what looks like the same issue. I thought I would mention it here b

Re: [sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:17:54 AM UTC-8, vdelecroix wrote: > > Le 20/12/2018 à 17:40, Vincent Delecroix a écrit : > > My use case is that I have one billion of number field elements that > > I want to plot. That goes through __float__ that calls > > numerical_approx that goes through

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

What is the extent of the bug? Does it require forming a polynomial ring whose coefficients are a BooleanPolynomialRing? That's pretty specific. If the problem arises more generally, with other rings as coefficients, then it could be a blocker. On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:49:30 AM UTC

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

Even considering the pivotal rôle of polynomials and fraction fields thereof ? Le jeudi 20 décembre 2018 20:47:03 UTC+1, John H Palmieri a écrit : > > Critical but it's not a blocker, in my opinion. > > > On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: >> >> Th

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

Critical but it's not a blocker, in my opinion. On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > > This seems > seems to be a showstopper, enough to trump the best laid out plans of mice, > men a

[sage-devel] Re: Changes in polynomial quotient ring are intended?

I agree that this seems a critical bug. Would you mind filing a ticket with importance "critical" ? Le mercredi 19 décembre 2018 20:11:25 UTC+1, Jörg-Volker a écrit : > > Hi, > > in version 8.4 this example doesn't work anymore as it did at least until > version 8.2: > varl = ['x0', 'x1', 'x2',

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

This seems seems to be a showstopper, enough to trump the best laid out plans of mice, men and mathematicians. No ticket yet, but I agree that this seems critical. Le mardi 18 décembre 2018 12:50:44 UTC+1, E. Madison Bray a écrit

Re: [sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

Le 20/12/2018 à 17:40, Vincent Delecroix a écrit : My use case is that I have one billion of number field elements that I want to plot. That goes through __float__ that calls numerical_approx that goes through conversion to MPFR real field. Considering my use case, I know how to make it faster (

[sage-devel] Re: Changes in polynomial quotient ring are intended?

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 9:49:38 AM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 11:11:25 AM UTC-8, Jörg-Volker wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> in version 8.4 this example doesn't work anymore as it did at least until >> version 8.2: >> varl = ['x0', 'x1', 'x2', 'x3'] >> B = B

[sage-devel] Re: Changes in polynomial quotient ring are intended?

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 11:11:25 AM UTC-8, Jörg-Volker wrote: > > Hi, > > in version 8.4 this example doesn't work anymore as it did at least until > version 8.2: > varl = ['x0', 'x1', 'x2', 'x3'] > B = BooleanPolynomialRing(names = varl) > B.inject_variables(verbose=False) > P. = Polyn

Re: [sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

My use case is that I have one billion of number field elements that I want to plot. That goes through __float__ that calls numerical_approx that goes through conversion to MPFR real field. Considering my use case, I know how to make it faster (implement __float__ on nf elements). Though I though

Re: [sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

You should say that this coercion is only being proposed when nf is a *real quadratic field*! For a general number field F one can get F.embeddings(RR) (or variants with RR replaced by a RealField of any precision, for example, or CC, or...). Why can that not be used for this coercion? Personall

[sage-devel] making faster nf -> RR conversions

Dear all, At #26925 I failed to make a more direct coercion nf -> RR. What we have now go through nf -> AA -> RLF -> RR and is dramatically slow. The coercion path can be analyzed via sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 - x - 1, embedding=(1+AA(5).sqrt())/2) sage: cm = get_coercion_model() sage: cm.expla

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

Hi Seeing as the freezes are coming up on the buster side, https://release.debian.org/buster/freeze_policy.html , I have added two (amd64 and i386) buster buildbots. (I mailed Volker and his ssh keys are added.) Regards, Jan On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 11:17, E. Madison Bray wrote: > On Thu, Dec

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:10 AM Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2018-12-20 00:12, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > How about trying to get this into 8.5? (or perhaps 8.5.1?) > > Rushing GAP 4.10 in Sage 8.5 doesn't sound like a good idea to me. > Ideally, it should be sufficiently tested in betas. Depends

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:01 AM Antonio Rojas wrote: > > > > El martes, 18 de diciembre de 2018, 12:50:44 (UTC+1), E. Madison Bray > escribió: >> >> As pointed out by Samuel last month [1] the transition freeze (i.e. >> new package versions) for the next major Debian release (buster) is >> comin

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

On 2018-12-20 00:12, Dima Pasechnik wrote: How about trying to get this into 8.5? (or perhaps 8.5.1?) Rushing GAP 4.10 in Sage 8.5 doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Ideally, it should be sufficiently tested in betas. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G

[sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

El martes, 18 de diciembre de 2018, 12:50:44 (UTC+1), E. Madison Bray escribió: > > As pointed out by Samuel last month [1] the transition freeze (i.e. > new package versions) for the next major Debian release (buster) is > coming up January 12 [2]. This is important for Sage and those > wor

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:56 AM E. Madison Bray wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:12 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > I`ve just given #22626 (port gap/libgap to GAP 4.10) a positive > > review (Erik deserves a round of applause for this great work!) > > And the associated #26856 (gap_packages

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:12 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > I`ve just given #22626 (port gap/libgap to GAP 4.10) a positive > review (Erik deserves a round of applause for this great work!) > And the associated #26856 (gap_packages/database) will be up for > reviewing very soon, > I`m just running

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

Same here * 'Martin R' via sage-devel [2018-12-20 00:36:35]: I have very little time, but if someone posts very precise compilation instructions to upgrade from current develop, I would let my computer play with it in the background. (currently compiling 8.5.rc1) In particular: was gap 4.10

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delaying 8.5 or fast-tracking 8.6?

I have very little time, but if someone posts very precise compilation instructions to upgrade from current develop, I would let my computer play with it in the background. (currently compiling 8.5.rc1) In particular: was gap 4.10 already tested with optional packages like coxeter3 and the exp