Re: [sage-devel] len(WeylGroup(["B", 6]).as_permutation_group().conjugacy_classes_subgroups())

12:18 AM Nils Bruin wrote: > >> > >> When I tried with sage, I got 7440, which agrees with what magma > computes. So I think this strongly points to a problem in gap (given it's > not even self-consistent) > >> > >> On Thursday, 25 September 2025 at

[sage-devel] len(WeylGroup(["B", 6]).as_permutation_group().conjugacy_classes_subgroups())

gives me 7441, 7442 or even 7443. I am baffled. Martin -- 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 view this disc

[sage-devel] strategy question about method name uniformity

At https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40875, Frédéric is harmonizing the prefix of the names of methods returning the number of facets (points, vertices, parts, etc.) of polytopes to `n_facets`, before it was `nfacets`. While I think this is very good, I would rather go one tiny step further,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: strategy question about method name uniformity

There are about 100 distinct methods named `number_of_xxx`. I'm a bit sceptical that changing or aliasing these to `num_xxx` is a good idea - mostly because of tab completion. Martin On Wednesday, 24 September 2025 at 16:39:57 UTC+2 Vincent Macri wrote: > I agree that consistency is good. I p

[sage-devel] please convert the PR's to draft

whenever appropriate. I like browsing PR's for needs-review, but currently this is frustrating, because it is unclear which are really ready for review. Martin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and s

Re: [sage-devel] automatic "needs review" after merging develop branch

Why should a PR go automagically (!) from needs work to needs review after a merge? Martin On Monday, 1 September 2025 at 17:38:35 UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 04:45:01AM -0700, 'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote: > > The problem is that the bot

Re: [sage-devel] automatic "needs review" after merging develop branch

s in the SageMath organization (we probably want people > to need some permissions to be able to approve a PR, otherwise someone > could make two GitHub accounts and bypass the review process by approving > their PR from their second account). > On 2025-09-02 6:21 a.m., 'Martin

Re: [sage-devel] automatic "needs review" after merging develop branch

sitive review status back on after > this. > > > > On August 31, 2025 5:31:48 AM CDT, 'Martin R' via sage-devel < > sage-...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> Ii is currently a pain to find pull requests that *really* need review, >> because, after

Re: [sage-devel] automatic "needs review" after merging develop branch

> but this button removes the draft status. I guess that I severely miscommunicated. I had the following process in mind: 1. PR is opened, and automatically set to "draft" 2. once it is ready for review, owner clicks "needs review", so the "draft" is removed 3. a developer with review priv

Re: [sage-devel] automatic "needs review" after merging develop branch

PR's should be draft by default. As a reviewer, I cannot convert to draft. I agree that it might be better to get rid of the labels `positive review`, `needs review`, `needs work` now. Martin On Tuesday, 2 September 2025 at 03:12:48 UTC+2 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > On Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at

[sage-devel] automatic "needs review" after merging develop branch

Ii is currently a pain to find pull requests that *really* need review, because, after every minor release, people tend to merge develop (which makes sense), and then some bot changes the label to "needs review", no matter what it was before. Can somebody please please fix that? Martin --

Re: [sage-devel] Re: conflicting semantics of rank

Dear Nils, On Wednesday, 20 August 2025 at 18:00:15 UTC+2 Nils Bruin wrote: On Wednesday, 20 August 2025 at 02:57:36 UTC-7 axio...@yahoo.de wrote: Well, rank is really the standard term in computational combinatorics. But, as you note, it doesn't play nicely with terminology from other areas

Re: [sage-devel] Problem with randstate, set_seed_gap

perfect, thank you! This is done as part of https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40630, maybe you could have a brief look at this specific part? On Wednesday, 20 August 2025 at 15:08:50 UTC+2 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 2025-08-20 03:16:18, 'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote: >

[sage-devel] Problem with randstate, set_seed_gap

I would like to use libgap in PermutationGroup_generic.random_element, because of the following: sage: G = PermutationGroup([[(1,2,3),(4,5)], [(1,2)]]) sage: %timeit G(G._libgap_().Random(), check=False) 9.83 µs ± 24.8 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100,000 loops each) sage: %timeit G(G

Re: [sage-devel] Re: conflicting semantics of rank

Well, rank is really the standard term in computational combinatorics. It seems to me that index is already quite overloaded: for example, `CombinatorialObject` defines it. I cannot find `index` as an alias for `rank`, where did you see that? I think that the main use for rank and unrank is to

[sage-devel] base_ring not a ring?

I am guessing that this is a bug. Can anybody confirm? sage: T = StandardTableau([[1,2,3],[4,5]]).residue_sequence(3).standard_tableaux() sage: T.base_ring() 3-residue sequence (0,1,2,2,0) with multicharge (0) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-

[sage-devel] conflicting semantics of rank

Dear all, in the category for `EnumeratedSets` we have methods `rank` and `unrank` that provide a bijection between the set and the natural numbers (or some interval [0,n], if the cardinality is n). These methods are mostly used in the category framework, I think, to provide generic implementa

[sage-devel] Re: documentation of parents and elements

Would it make sense to have a decorator for `_element_constructor_` that adds the doc to the `__init__` (or the class) docstring? For example, in LazySeriesRing: @element_construction_doc def _element_constructor_(self, x=None, valuation=None, degree=None, constant=None, coefficients=None): ..

[sage-devel] documentation of parents and elements

Dear all, I am trying to understand how we want to document parents and elements. As an example, consider a user trying to construct a matrix or a polynomial as follows. sage: MatrixSpace? sage: PolynomialRing? yields the class docstring or the class factory, which indeed contains documentat

Re: [sage-devel] Help with permutation groups / gap wanted

Martin On Monday, 2 June 2025 at 17:46:50 UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 3:10 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote: > > Here is one idea: perhaps I can rewrite `PolynomialSpeciesElement.action` so that it actually returns a gap action. (it makes my brain

Re: [sage-devel] Help with permutation groups / gap wanted

gt; >>> I was confused, too, but I think the point is that Y is assumed to be >>> {1,2,...,N}. So the action G is a homomorphism from S_n to S_N. The >>> action F is a homomorphism from S_N to the symmetric group on X. We can >>> compose these two homomorphis

Re: [sage-devel] Help with permutation groups / gap wanted

We can >> compose these two homomorphisms to get an action of S_n on X. >> >> On May 31, 2025, at 6:06 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 2:57 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel >> wrote: >> >> >> Dear permutation g

Re: [sage-devel] Help with permutation groups / gap wanted

025, at 6:06 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 2:57 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel > wrote: > > > Dear permutation group / gap experts! > > I would enjoy some expert help to implement the so called functorial > composition of species. The operatio

[sage-devel] Help with permutation groups / gap wanted

Dear permutation group / gap experts! I would enjoy some expert help to implement the so called functorial composition of species. The operation is easy to define even without mentioning combinatorial species, as follows: Let Y = {1,2,...,N} Let G: S_n x Y -> Y be a (left) action of the symme

[sage-devel] Re: should I manually adapt meson.build?

Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/martin/sage/tools/update-meson.py", line 15, in from mesonbuild.mformat import ( ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'mesonbuild.mformat' On Friday, 16 May 2025 at 02:20:01 UTC+2 tobia...@gmx.de wrote: > Yes the meson files need to be chang

[sage-devel] should I manually adapt meson.build?

The patchbot reports the following: Run python3 tools/update-meson.py Analyzing meson file: ./meson.build -- Project: SageMath -- Version: undefined Rewriting ./src/sage/rings/meson.build Error: the git repo has uncommitted changes: M src/sage/rings/meson.build HEAD detached from pull/3854

[sage-devel] lazy combinatorial species

I would like to advertise https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38544, implementing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_species, and as a side request the discussion of one important design question, https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38544#issuecomment-2481392240. The pull request i

Re: [sage-devel] Re: GSoC 2025 Ideas

That would be awesome! Maybe it is not completely impossible to find a suitable Lisp student, if we advertise it in the right places? Martin On Thursday, 20 February 2025 at 02:56:52 UTC+1 dim...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 February 2025 09:25:12 GMT-06:00, 'Martin R' via sage-de

Re: [sage-devel] Re: GSoC 2025 Ideas

I would like to remark that, as far as I know, the guessing facilities of gfun have a reasonable replacement which is available in sage through fricas. The last time I checked, this was more general and at least as fast than it's maple counterpart. The one thing that would dramatically improve

[sage-devel] Re: GSoC 2025 Ideas

I'd be happy to co-mentor the diagram algebra project (where I know a little bit of the mathematics), and also the free module project. Martin On Thursday, 6 February 2025 at 00:38:30 UTC+1 tcsc...@gmail.com wrote: > Some other points I should mention: > > - Google will probably start looking at

[sage-devel] request for help on Saturday 15, SageDays 127

Dear all, I will have a few participants without sage installed on their laptop. Two of them, using Windows and MacOS respectively, will need to install sage on Saturday. I don't have any experience using Windows and MacOS, I would thus very much appreciate if somebody who knows what to do in

Re: [sage-devel] Policy for closing abandoned PRs

I'm afraid that adding a tag will modify the pull request, which would not be good for my workflow. Could this be avoided? Martin On Friday, 24 January 2025 at 20:55:13 UTC+1 Vincent Macri wrote: > It seems like adding an "r: stale" or "r: unresponsive" tag might be a > better approach with m

Re: [sage-devel] Policy for closing abandoned PRs

I use the (very disappointing) search facility on github extensively to see whether other people had similar problems when trying to implement something. To do this, it is very helpful that unfinished tickets are *not* closed, because this gives me the "interesting" tickets with a single click:

[sage-devel] Re: integral fail using fricas 1.3.11 using sagemath 10.5 but works with fricas

Nope. From what you say follows that Sage’s dilog(x) and Fricas’ dilog(1-x) are the *same mathematical object*. Therefore, the Fricas translation of Sage’s dilog() should be dilog(1-). And *vice-versa* : the Sage’s translation of Fricas’ dilog() should be Sage’s dilog(1-). That's precisely w

[sage-devel] Re: integral fail using fricas 1.3.11 using sagemath 10.5 but works with fricas

Sorry, I don't understand. On Sunday, 12 January 2025 at 12:55:26 UTC+1 emanuel.c...@gmail.com wrote: Le vendredi 10 janvier 2025 à 22:36:39 UTC+1, axio…@yahoo.de a écrit : fricas dilog and sage dilog are not the same: sage: fricas(polylog(3, x)) polylog(3,x) sage: fricas(dilog(x)) dilog(- x +

[sage-devel] Re: integral fail using fricas 1.3.11 using sagemath 10.5 but works with fricas

fricas dilog and sage dilog are not the same: sage: fricas(polylog(3, x)) polylog(3,x) sage: fricas(dilog(x)) dilog(- x + 1) sage: integrand=(dilog(-x + 1)^2 - log(-x + 1)*polylog(3, x))/x sage: fricas(integrand) 2 - log(- x + 1)polylog(3,x) + dilog(x) --

[sage-devel] are there recommended programming environments for beginners?

As I am preparing my first ever sage days, I was trying to figure out what to recommend to new users. My alter ego tells me that emacs is perhaps not the first choice for users coming from Mathematica on MS Windows. Doing my research I stumbled over https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/3050

[sage-devel] sage days 127, TU Vienna, Austria

Dear all, this is the final announcement of sage days 127 - https://wiki.sagemath.org/days127 from Saturday 22 February to Tuesday 25 February 2025 at TU Wien, Austria. In this workshop, we will provide tutorials for beginners as needed and discover ways how to profit from SageMath's capabilit

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Example of an UFD in Sage for which is_unit is significantly slower than is_one

Well, only if the ring of integers is just a subset of K. Essentially, that means that we cannot really compute with O - eg., compute the gcd of two polynomials over O. Martin On Friday, 13 December 2024 at 21:07:50 UTC+1 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1:38 PM 'Marti

[sage-devel] Re: Example of an UFD in Sage for which is_unit is significantly slower than is_one

This does not look right, does it? sage: K. = NumberField(x^2-3) sage: O = K.ring_of_integers() sage: c = O(2*a + 4) sage: isinstance(O, Field) False sage: isinstance(c, FieldElement) True Martin On Thursday, 12 December 2024 at 23:35:40 UTC+1 Nils Bruin wrote: > On Thursday, 12 December 2024 at

[sage-devel] Re: Example of an UFD in Sage for which is_unit is significantly slower than is_one

Great, thank you! This - almost - provides a performance test: ``` sage: K.=NumberField(x^2-3) sage: O=K.ring_of_integers() sage: b=O(a-2) sage: R. = O[] sage: f = O(2*a + 4)*z^2 sage: f.gcd(f+1) ... NotImplementedError: Maximal Order generated by a in Number Field in a with defining polyno

[sage-devel] Example of an UFD in Sage for which is_unit is significantly slower than is_one

Dear all, for testing purposes I am in need of an UFD in Sage for which is_unit is significantly slower than is_one. Note that, unfortunately, quotient rings do not seem supported currently. Background: my pull request https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38924 provides a critical speedup fo

[sage-devel] More libsingular rings and improved signal detection needs review

Dear all, I would like a second pair of eyes on https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/39075 I looked through the changes and I think they are good and well-tested. However, I don't know singular, and therefore would appreciate shared responsibility. Best wishes, Martin -- You received thi

[sage-devel] Re: UniqueRepresentation of Partitions

Thank you, in particular for the explanation! I tried to remove UniqueRepresentation from Partitions, and indeed, the application I was doing this for becomes a lot faster. However, there are many doctests failing, so I'll postpone this. Martin On Thursday, 21 November 2024 at 18:06:30 UTC+1

[sage-devel] UniqueRepresentation of Partitions

Dear all, my intention was to fix a small shortcoming, reported in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/38897, which surfaced a few further small problems. One thing I'm unsure about is the following: Partitions currently inherits from UniqueRepresentation. However, it is frequently used

[sage-devel] Re: combinatorial species design decisions

I just realized that there is no (proper) way to implement relabelling and isomorphism on the structure level. On Sunday, 17 November 2024 at 18:29:00 UTC+1 Martin R wrote: > I'm very interested in comments to > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38544. > > In short, the next design decision

[sage-devel] combinatorial species design decisions

I'm very interested in comments to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38544. In short, the next design decision is the following: I realize that I have no idea whether a species structure should have any structure at all. I see the following two options: 1. `structures` indeed returns just

[sage-devel] uglier output after change in gcd

Since it may affect people that have not seen https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38924, I'm asking here whether the output sage: P. = ProjectiveSpace(Qp(3), 1) sage: f = DynamicalSystem_Berkovich([2*x^2, 2*y^2]) sage: f.normalize_coordinates(); f

[sage-devel] much faster gcd for generic UFDs

I am asking for opinions on https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38924 It is a significant performance improvement for some computations, but makes some results less beautiful. Martin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubsc

[sage-devel] division in polynomial rings

I just stumbled over ``` sage: Q. = Frac(QQ['z']) sage: R. = Q[] sage: r = x*y - (2*z-1)/(z^2+z+1) * x + y/z sage: p = r * (x + z*y - 1/z^2) sage: p // p 0*x^2*y + (0*z)*x*y^2 ``` in current develop. Does somebody have an old version of sage, so we can see whether this is a regression? -- You r

[sage-devel] Re: gcd in generic polynomial rings with many generators

Ah, S = R.__class__(R.base_ring(), len(Z), [str(z) for z in Z], R.term_order()) is silly, because it bypasses the caching mechanism. In fact, I'm not sure anymore whether I am on the right track: the basic problem is described at the bottom of https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38108. Looki

[sage-devel] Re: gcd in generic polynomial rings with many generators

I think I see things slightly clearer now. One problem is, that, by design, we successively reduce to polynomial rings with fewer generators. More precisely, MPolynomial.gcd converts the input to a univariate polynomial in one of the generators, and UniqueFactorizationDomains.ParentMethods._g

[sage-devel] Re: gcd in generic polynomial rings with many generators

Possibly the problem is that MPolynomial.gcd calls UniqueFactorizationDomains.ParentMethods._gcd_univariate_polynomial, which recurses on MPolynomial.gcd, but the setup done by MPolynomial.gcd is possibly not cheap. On Sunday 3 November 2024 at 12:31:44 UTC+1 Martin R wrote: > Are the followin

[sage-devel] gcd in generic polynomial rings with many generators

Are the following timings to be expected? sage: R = SymmetricFunctions(QQ).h().fraction_field() sage: P = PolynomialRing(R, 200, "x") sage: e = P.gen(199); e x199 sage: %time e.gcd(e) CPU times: user 41.1 s, sys: 2.24 s, total: 43.4 s Wall time: 43.5 s x199 sage: R = QQ sage: P = PolynomialRing(R

[sage-devel] Re: strange part of the doc

That would be good. If you navigate to https://doc.sagemath.org/ this is one of the first thing you would see. Actually, I would expect to see https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/index.html instead. On Thursday 31 October 2024 at 12:12:47 UTC+1 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > They are artifacts generated f

[sage-devel] strange part of the doc

I just ran across https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/jupyter_execute/index.html and couldn't figure out what it is. Any ideas? -- 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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal: ci codecov/patch reports but not fail

I would like to report from a personal experiment. Nudged towards looking at the codecov warnings by tscrim, I learned that several of them actually uncovered truly (non-obviously) dead code in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38446. Making sure that the code code indeed not be reached b

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Days 128 in Le Teich (Feb 10-14, 2025), a bird watching reserve near Bordeaux

Hi Doris, sorry for answering late! As mentioned, sage days 127 *will* take place in Vienna, at TU Wien! If you are interested in coming, please drop me a line - most importantly: whether I may put your name on the list of participants at https://wiki.sagemath.org/days127 Best wishes, Martin

[sage-devel] Re: Accountability of the CoCC

Dear Matthias! You write: I have severe concerns, at the core of which are: 1. the complete and willful refusal by the committee to recognize and address abuse ( https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/CODE_OF_CONDUCT_COMMITTEE.md#clear-and-severe-breach-actions), 2. the public defamat

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

I think that this would be a major step backwards. Currently, if I make changes in one part of sage (right now: polynomials), I am sometimes a bit surprised where I am breaking code (in the case at hand: braid groups). Of course, this is rarely surprising once I look at the code, but I don't h

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

> It may provide a "sage" with elementary mathematics that all advanced mathematics depend There is no boundary between "elementary" and "advanced" mathematics. Also, there is no boundary between "discrete mathematics" and "complex analysis" or "numerics". > There's a simple and important pri

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

... What I tried to say is that the core distribution should have minimal dependencies, but contain as much of sage as possible. More code requires more dependencies. The "core distribution" as you describe is not possible. I don't understand this, and I don't understand why some "function

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

So, it turns out that > * a core distribution with absolutely minimal dependencies and only dependencies which have proved stable on all supported platforms > > This is exactly sagemath-categories. It has absolutely minimal dependencies is not what I tried to say. What I tried to say is that

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

Please don't fragment this discussion. It seems productive to me currently. On Sunday 29 September 2024 at 09:09:42 UTC+2 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > I welcome this discussion on the design of modularized distribution > packages. > > Perhaps Matthias has his design fixed in his plan. But I believe th

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

> I could also imagine to have three layers: > > * a core distribution with absolutely minimal dependencies and only dependencies which have proved stable on all supported platforms > > This is exactly sagemath-categories. It has absolutely minimal dependencies. Would it make sense to gi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

A much more meaningful design, and an obvious improvement, would be to have a (say) sagemath-smallcore, where, say, 70% of sagelib functionality is, with the remaining parts based off this sagemath-smallcore. I agree. This sounds more reasonable to me. I could also imagine to have three

[sage-devel] Re: coefficients and monomials

This very first step looked easy, I have done it in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38729. Waiting for the testbots. Martin On Saturday 28 September 2024 at 19:01:44 UTC+2 Martin R wrote: > Dear all, > > in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38108, which provides a solver > for funct

[sage-devel] coefficients and monomials

Dear all, in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38108, which provides a solver for functional equations in lazy completions of graded algebras with basis, I (want to) use generic methods, so that I do not have to write special code for every other algebra. Here is an example which I find a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

Yes, I had to care about the `all.py` files whenever I added something that should be exposed to the user. Eg., Bijectionist, LazyXXXSeriesRing, GrowthDiagram, whatever. So, at the very least I would like to know what decides whether something goes into `all__sagemath_categories` and what does

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

I think that "technical discussion" refers to "discussion about a technical detail". However, this PR introduces a new kind of file, `all__sagemath_categories.py`, into (almost?) *every* subdirectory of src. Thus, it seems to me that this affects almost all developers - after all these files

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

I don't see why `simplify` should be in something named `sagemath_categories`. How is it decided whether a function should be a function in `Sage categories, basic rings, polynomials, functions`? Martin On Saturday 28 September 2024 at 04:02:26 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Friday, Septemb

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

I don't understand this PR. The diagram you link to indicates that sagemath-categories is almost at the bottom, whereas sagemath-symbolics is almost at the top of the hierarchy that you propose. However, the PR includes a file src/sage/calculus/all__sagemath_categories.py

[sage-devel] sage days 127, TU Vienna, Austria

Dear all, there will be a short sage days event from Saturday 22 February to Tuesday 25 February 2025, with a focus on using sage in algebra, combinatorics and probability. https://wiki.sagemath.org/days127 It would be especially wonderful to have at least a second person around that is well

[sage-devel] wiki.sagemath.org down

Is there anybody who can fix this? -- 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 view this discussion on the web visi

[sage-devel] trying to run %crun

I was trying to have a look at https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/38630 using %crun, but I get the error below. Anybody knows what's going on? I found https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32508296/gperftools-error-substr-outside-of-string-at-usr-local-bin-pprof-line-3618, but cannot deci

[sage-devel] Re: Policy discussion about blocking others on Github

The proposed change looks very reasonable to me - thank you for working on that! Regarding Kwankyu's remark: > A practical issue related with this discussion is as follows. If a member B is blocked by another member A, and there is a PR created by A. Then does B still (1) have the full rights

Re: [sage-devel] Re: message marked as off topic

Please note that Dima is possibly not the only person affected. Matthias said that he blocked me, too: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38219#issuecomment-2288038077. In https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/XDvKkMRoDk4/m/dLm8DH6ZAAAJ the code of conduct committee stated, that blocking

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Policy discussion about hiding GitHub comments

I fully agree with the proposed policy. It appears to me that there is no consensus among the dozen or so contributurs in what is considered off topic or offensive. Therefore, I would hope that such a policy reduces tension. If possible (and the policy is adopted), it might be extra-nice if t

[sage-devel] Re: Policy discussion about editing GitHub comments and PR/issue descriptions

I would be happy with the proposed policy. I would tend to allow fixing typos and updating links in all comments. However, since there is already a lot of tension between some developers, it is probably easier to refrain from that. Martin On Thursday 22 August 2024 at 21:35:07 UTC+2 Matthias

[sage-devel] Re: message marked as off topic

Concerning technology: I was not notified by github that my comment was marked off topic. Concerning collaboration: I think that no matter who (e.g. a single person or the community angels) marks a comment as off topic, or removes or adds a disputed label, or modifies the description of a pull

[sage-devel] Re: message marked as off topic

I must say that I find this response intolerable. I cannot quit, because I have duties, but I am really pissed off. Martin On Tuesday 13 August 2024 at 21:41:54 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > I marked Martin's message as off-topic because PR discussions are not a > place for discussions about p

[sage-devel] Re: message marked as off topic

Sorry, I don't understand. I was asking on the PR why the disputed label was *removed*, not added. And I do not understand, why my question was marked as "off topic". Martin On Tuesday 13 August 2024 at 13:55:32 UTC+2 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > According to the preliminary discussion on "disputed

[sage-devel] message marked as off topic

I asked a question at https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38219 which was promptly labelled off topic, so I suppose I should ask it here: The preceding message on the pull request was: I have removed the improper use of the "disputed" label. My question (and comment) was: Why is the

[sage-devel] very preliminary anouncement: SageDays Vienna, 22.2. - 25.2. 2025

Dear all, I am planning to host a small SageDays event at TU Wien, Austria in February next year, from Saturday 22. to (most likely) Tuesday 25, with a focus on combinatorics. There will be proper announcements later, of course. In case you are interested or have questions, please do not hesi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: ssl problem

y of bzip2 liblzma libffi zlib is >> installed as or will be installed as SPKG >> configure:39894: result: yes; install python3 as well >> configure:41398: no suitable system package found for SPKG python3 >> >> >> On Wednesday 31 July 2024 at 19:51:55 UTC+2 Dima Pase

Re: [sage-devel] Re: ssl problem

SPKG configure:39894: result: yes; install python3 as well configure:41398: no suitable system package found for SPKG python3 On Wednesday 31 July 2024 at 19:51:55 UTC+2 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On 31 July 2024 14:19:36 BST, 'Martin R' via sage-devel < > sage-...@g

[sage-devel] Re: Bug or feature in Jacobian of hyperelliptic curve?

I know nothing about hyperelliptic curves. From the code, it seems possible that `self._names` is not taken into account properly. In jacobian_morphism.py, we have class JacobianMorphism_divisor_class_field(AdditiveGroupElement, SchemeMorphism): [...] def __init__(self, parent, polys, che

[sage-devel] Re: ssl problem

Yes, configure:42296: no suitable system package found for SPKG openssl and I don't think I can change that. logs/pkgs/openssl-3.2.2.log doesn't mention any errors. Martin On Wednesday 31 July 2024 at 15:00:24 UTC+2 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > FWIW, I don't have this issue on my computer runni

[sage-devel] ssl problem

I have a problem on a Ubuntu 22.04.4 LTS server (likely independent of the precise release of sage, I tried a fresh build). I don't know where to start. If I understand the logs correctly, it build openssl-3.2.2. Thanks in advance! Martin mrubey@ubuntu:~/sage$ ./sage ┌──

[sage-devel] Re: Attention: new high quality of docstrings

I think it would be good to have a conscious decision about when a merge of this pull request should happen. Since it affects 2262 (!) files, just about everybody will have to rebase their work. Also, when there is a clear decision, the author will not have to fix merge conflicts again and ag

[sage-devel] TRe: approve github actions

Thank you, yes, I now have the appropriate button! Wonderful! On Tuesday 14 May 2024 at 23:55:01 UTC+2 julian...@fsfe.org wrote: > I granted "write" permissions to you. That seems to be the required > permission to approve workflow runs. > > Can you check that it works now? > > julian > > PS: I

[sage-devel] approve github actions

Could I have the right to approve github actions? Otherwise, mentoring the GSOC student over github is a pain. Best wishes, Martin (mantepse) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emai

[sage-devel] Re: scalar multiplication of module element fails

I think I've got it. In `free_module_element.pyx` the method `FreeModuleElement_generic_dense._lmul_` does the following: cpdef _lmul_(self, Element right): """ EXAMPLES:: sage: v = vector([-1,0,3,pi]) # needs sage.s

[sage-devel] Re: scalar multiplication of module element fails

Update: I'm afraid I misunderstood - this does call __mul__, right? On Friday 10 May 2024 at 15:20:07 UTC+2 Martin R wrote: > I am trying to fix > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37976#issuecomment-2104464722 > > Briefly: > > sage: h = SymmetricFunctions(QQ).h() > sage: v = vector([h[3]+

[sage-devel] scalar multiplication of module element fails

I am trying to fix https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37976#issuecomment-2104464722 Briefly: sage: h = SymmetricFunctions(QQ).h() sage: v = vector([h[3]+h[2,1]]) sage: v * (-111) ({[3]: 1, [2, 1]: 1}) One reason for this is possibly sage: a = coercion_model.get_action(v.parent(), ZZ, operat

[sage-devel] collect names of all optional arguments used in sage

Dear all! I thought it may make sense to have an easy way to find the names of all optional (i.e., keyword) arguments used in sage, ideally as a dictionary mapping names to the methods where they are used. So, for example, one entry might be (schematically) (' rank', [random_subspaces_matrix,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Another example is large-scale pure math computation on clusters. Because of Sage's size and the nature of distributive file systems, the time to startup Sage can be 30 seconds or more, which complicates things if you want to do 100,000 calculations that are only 10 seconds each. I agree th

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thursday 25 April 2024 at 05:13:37 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 1:07:44 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: You mentioned several times, that discoverability is an important aspect. Do you have any evidence to support that? I mentioned "discoverability" in the contex

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Dear Matthias! You mentioned several times, that discoverability is an important aspect. Do you have any evidence to support that? Wouldn't people in the python world who need a serious amount of math know of sage anyway, and then, if they cannot rely on all of sage because that is too large,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

If I understand correctly, the current proposal does not mind if some things don't work or could be replaced without too much effort. For example, Dima might have referred to the fact that OrderedPartitions.cardinality uses gap, even though it is in sagemath-combinat. The gap dependency in `d

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >