Thanks for restarting the discussion Tobias. From my perspective, there
are several things that can move this conversation forward.
1. More clarity on how NEP-29 will be implemented in Sage. In particular,
that policy just guarantees a particular time frame during which Python
*will* be
I'm not getting 0 with that code:
sage: K. = Frac(QQ['a'])
sage: P. = ProjectiveSpace(K, 1)
sage: D2=-x^5 + (-3*a^2 + 7*a - 2)/a*x^4*y + (6*a^2 - 12*a + 4)/a*x^3*y^2 +
(3*a^4 - 19*a^3 + 29*a^2 - 14*a + 2)/(a^2)*x^2*y^3 + (-8*a^4 + 30*a^3 -
37*a^2 + 18*a - 3)/(a^2)*x*y^4 + (4*a^4 - 12*a^3 +
Any suggestions on how to move forward now? Should I simply open a new vote
or are there still open questions or a need to discuss certain aspects of
the proposal?
On Sunday, 4 June 2023 at 19:49:23 UTC+2 G. M.-S. wrote:
>
> For the benefit of all of us (including Dima, Matthias and Tobias),
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 4:37 AM Maximilian Wittmann wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> I am currently doing my masters thesis on the dimension of cartesian products
> of posets and believe I have stumbled upon an alternative approach to
> calculate the dimension, that performs better than the one in
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 8:48 AM John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> Just do a global search-and-replace: change ".vertices()" to
> ".vertices(sort=True, key=id)" or ".vertices(sort=True, key=str)".
>
Thanks for this.
You are right that I knew about the problems with sort(),
and sage 9.6 is OK for me
