On 11/18/2012 01:31 AM, Nils Bruin wrote:
That can be cleaned up quite a bit if this were rewritten to use
maxima_lib. In that case the multiplications would probably be actual
sage multiplications too, so would likely lead to the same errors as
in Sage, though.
The issue really is
On 13/11/2012, at 4:16 PM, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
Incidentally: Are PPC-OSX4 (or where-ever the problem earlier arose)
and i686 both 32 bit platforms?
Yes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To post to this group, send
On 11/11/2012 05:25 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out Jean-Pierre. Here is the ticket:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11576
I don't remember if the patch attached to the ticket is the most recent
one. This might be better:
On 11/06/2012 10:51 PM, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:14 am, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
What about a[None] returning a? That's a little awkward, I guess.
Thanks,
Jason
I would never think that a[None] would return a, whatever a is! I'd
expect something
On 11/05/12 12:40, Jason Grout wrote:
On 11/4/12 11:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I'm playing around with different ways to create collections of symbolic
variables. I though it would be nice to be able to chain subscripts,
e.g.,
sage: x[1][2]
x12
sage: latex(x[1][2])
x_{1
On 11/05/2012 05:05 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Very nice!
In the spirit of Python [1], There should be one-- and preferably only
one --obvious way to do it., may I suggest that you pick one indexing
convention (e.g., round or square brackets) and use that? I'd suggest
using square
I'm playing around with different ways to create collections of symbolic
variables. I though it would be nice to be able to chain subscripts, e.g.,
sage: x[1][2]
x12
sage: latex(x[1][2])
x_{1}_{2}
but while implementing __getitem__(), I ran into the following test:
Indexing directly
On 16/10/2012, at 7:17 PM, Paul-Olivier Dehaye
paul-olivier.deh...@math.uzh.ch wrote:
Is it always encouraged to upgrade spkgs to more current stable
upstream version?
Right now scipy is at 0.9, applied with patches to fix a bug that is
now corrected in version 0.11 (normally, I have not
I just created,
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13543
Basically, if you try,
sage: foo = var('foo')
sage: plot(x,x,0,1, legend_label='$%s$' % latex(foo))
Matplotlib will crash. This is because we wrap long variable names in a
latex \mbox, and matplotlib doesn't understand \mbox
this is an OS X general bug, not restricted to ML, but I lack other
computers to test on.
Michael
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group
On 09/27/2012 11:13 PM, kcrisman wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:36:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I just created,
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13543
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13543
Basically, if you try,
sage
the older scipy spkg?
Michael
JBT
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:12:25 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:57:42 PM UTC-7, JBT wrote:
Hi,
I tried to build sage from source code on my mac running Mountain lion
(10.8.2), but didn't succeed.
Sage
On 24/09/2012, at 4:29 PM, ancienthart joalheag...@gmail.com wrote:
Is *this* an error ... :/
Yes. In the documentation, not the test.
See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13524
On Monday, 24 September 2012 14:25:38 UTC+10, ancienthart wrote:
Hi everyone,
In the documentation:
it in your startup items (in System
Prefs) work?
It'll open Terminal, but a killall Terminal at the end will solve that...
Michael
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
On 6/09/2012, at 10:27 AM, Michael Welsh yom...@yomcat.geek.nz wrote:
On 6/09/2012, at 10:21 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
Relevant Question: Does anybody know how to robustly and successfully
start a script when OS X boots, so when the lab machine mentioned
above is rebooted
On 08/30/2012 12:36 PM, Luis Finotti wrote:
Dear all,
I had some changes made in a older version of sage. I wanted to create
a patch that I can apply to a new install, without uploading to trac (as
the changes are not good enough). Can anyone tell me the necessary
commands or point me in
On 3/08/2012, at 4:08 PM, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 2 August 2012 23:00:23 UTC+8, kfiz wrote:
yes, I'm trying to build sage in the Applications folder.
I'm not a big OSX expert, but I might expect that one needs to use sudo
sometimes to change things there
On 3/08/2012, at 2:12 AM, Anna Haensch annahaen...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the protocol then for reviewing patches on my machine at the moment?
I guess it's impossible to get all tests passed with my current install.
Try building from source. It should work on 10.6.8, with all doctests
On 07/03/12 23:06, Keshav Kini wrote:
IMO it's usually better to depend on someone else's code than to absorb
it, because then you can more easily pick up bugfixes later, and also it
makes it clearer that we are benefiting from their work. To choose
absorbing code instead of depending on it
On 07/04/2012 06:07 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com
wrote:
On 07/03/12 23:06, Keshav Kini wrote:
IMO it's usually better to depend on someone else's code than to absorb
it, because then you can more easily pick up bugfixes
On 06/27/12 11:16, Volker Braun wrote:
Debian is also pretty much the only one who disagrees with this.
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:13:40 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
Neither of these have any legal problems AFAIK.
Debian disagrees with this...
Debian wants to ship only
On 06/27/12 11:40, Volker Braun wrote:
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:24:29 PM UTC+1, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Debian wants to ship only Free Software. If your Free Software requires
non-Free software, it ain't Free.
This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Both Apache v1.0
On 06/01/12 02:05, Martin Albrecht wrote:
Secondly, it shouldn't be a problem but to verify: having a trademark on the
name does not present a problem for being included in Debian et al., right?
The Firefox/Iceweasel mess was the result of Mozilla's stance that you
aren't allowed to
On 05/29/12 16:42, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
What does the acronym FAT in SAGE_FAT_BINARY refer to?
FAT Acronym Triplet
(it just means fat, i.e. big)
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
On 23/05/2012, at 6:50 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
What are these command line tools?
They're hiding in the preferences for XCode. The Sage readme has the exact
place.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
On 05/12/2012 08:19 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
The latter conversation is an approximation of one that I had about five
times near the beginning of our semester-long Sage class for
undergraduates last fall, and which I'm sure other tutors for the class
must have gone through as well with other
Apropos nothing, I'm just curious why we default to randomize=True when
plotting?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
On 05/11/12 15:25, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
It's to avoid issues like plotting sin(x) on (0, 100*pi) for 100
uniformly-distributed points.
Makes sense, thanks.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
On 05/02/2012 01:00 PM, kcrisman wrote:
Note the indirect doctest, which is important, since otherwise the
coverage script will complain about the fact that the name of the to-
be-tested method (_repr_) does not occur in the test.
Yup, and same for things like _pow_ as you say. On
On 05/02/2012 05:38 PM, Simon King wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 2012-05-02, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
You can usually call the underscore methods directly.
I thought (i.e.: I am sure that I was repeatedly told) that calling
magical methods in a doctest is strongly discouraged
On 04/12/12 09:57, ancienthart wrote:
Hi guys, wanted to have a crack at the following trac ticket.
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9824
Basically the documentation at
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/calculus/desolvers.html#sage.calculus.desolvers.desolve_system
needs to
On 04/13/12 04:43, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I would like to know whether Sage developers find it important that
*new* spkgs (developed today) work on *older* versions of Sage (say,
sage-4.7 or sage-4.8).
Personally, I don't care at all about this. If it works on the latest
beta, that's fine.
On 04/06/2012 10:51 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
On Apr 6, 2:15 pm, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
That was a too-simple example. You can't create e.g. a cubic spline
because of the evaluated derivatives. In general the form over [-1,1]
would look like,
s(f;x) = a(x)*f(-1) + b(x)*f
On 04/04/12 15:39, Nils Bruin wrote:
On Apr 1, 2:34 pm, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
Substitution doesn't even work pre-evaluation:
sage: f = function('f', x)
sage: f_prime = f.diff(x)
sage: g = function('g', x)
sage: f_prime.substitute_function(f,g)
D[0](f
On 04/06/12 16:12, Nils Bruin wrote:
which you *can* provided you avoid the pitfall of function('f',x):
sage: f=function('f')
sage: var('a,b')
(a, b)
sage: midpoint = (1/2)*( f(a) + f(b) )
sage: midpoint
1/2*f(a) + 1/2*f(b)
sage: midpoint.substitute_function(f,sin)
1/2*sin(a) +
On 04/01/2012 02:06 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
That's essentially the syntax we already have for FDerivativeOperator.
which can also be like f.D(0) and f.D(0,1) ?
I think that has merit, but it doesn't solve the problem that sage
should probably have some notational convention for the
On 03/28/2012 06:14 PM, Mark Shimozono wrote:
Suppose I want to create a custom subclass of a polynomial ring.
From which class should it inherit? It should not care so much about
the
eventual base ring.
I'm a sage development newbie.
Where can I read about the class hierarchy for sage
On 03/27/12 13:10, John H Palmieri wrote:
This topic has been brought up here before as side notes in various
threads, but I'd like to discuss it more officially:
Should we remove MoinMoin as a standard package?
[X] Yes
[X] Get rid of altogether
--
To post to this group, send an email to
On 03/21/12 14:56, William Stein wrote:
Hi Proud Sage Developers,
At the current Sage workshop some people (me, David Roe, Jen
Balakrishnan, etc.) have made a stopgap function and identified Trac
tickets describing Bugs silently producing wrong answers. So far
they listed 7 of them:
On 03/12/12 11:00, Peter H. wrote:
I should amend my comment, since I was sloppy. Neither `x+1` nor `-x
-1` is inherently positive or negative. `|x+1|` is the only thing
that is, so that output would be the most correct result of your real
expression. If Maxima doesn't actually return that,
On 03/10/2012 08:32 AM, rjf wrote:
You pretty much are missing the boat on what to do here.
You seem to think you are constrained to return something that Maxima
returns, and simultaneously think that you are building some kind of new
mathematical correct system.
There are two branches to the
Did we ever get :trac:, :ticket:, or something similar?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
On 03/10/2012 11:01 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
Michael Orlitzkymich...@orlitzky.com writes:
Did we ever get :trac:, :ticket:, or something similar?
Yup - http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12490 was merged in
5.0.beta4.
Sweet, I tried it before asking but forgot the backticks. Looks
On 03/04/2012 07:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
simplify
...
2. We can replace the existing simplify with,
simplify_factorial -
simplify_trig -
simplify_rational -
simplify_log
which seem to be safe in practice. I like this, because it does actually
try to simplify
On 03/06/12 12:03, daniel.kho wrote:
sage: f = sqrt(x^2 + 2*x + 1)
sage: f.full_simplify()
x + 1
I think the user should have to try *really* hard to ask us for this
simplification.
Right now, simplify() just sends an expression to maxima and back. Full
simplify does every
On 03/06/12 12:17, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
This is very wrong over the reals, where we *should* get abs(x+1) rather
than choosing +(x+1) or -(x+1) randomly.
It's also super frickin' wrong over the complex numbers:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12322
but that's not the problem I
On 03/06/12 14:26, Oscar Lazo wrote:
2. We can replace the existing simplify with,
simplify_factorial -
simplify_trig -
simplify_rational -
simplify_log
which seem to be safe in practice. I like this, because it does actually
try to simplify the expression but you can have
On 03/04/12 20:16, François Bissey wrote:
this is python, you would want to get familliar with setup.py.
I think it is a great deal to overwrite the content of your prefix system.
First, all promises about safe upgrades without any (dangerous) left overs
are off!
That's my top concern.
On 03/04/2012 01:15 AM, François Bissey wrote:
That's a bit more complicated than that. But in essence yes you can.
Now do you know how to get your version of the library to be used
instead of the system one? Getting a copy and recompiling it is just
hum. 2/3 of the story (just so you
Right now, we have a problem with simplification. There are a couple of
open tickets about it, and an Ask Sage thread, but it's easier to give
an example (thanks to logix on IRC for the minimal test case):
sage: f = sqrt(x^2 + 2*x + 1)
sage: f.full_simplify()
x + 1
I think the user
On 03/02/2012 02:29 PM, kcrisman wrote:
IF the patchbot actually applied the right patches to the right
development version, naturally, which I suppose is what you mean in
the next line?
I meant that it would suck if the patchbot marked a ticket needs work
because e.g. it ran out of memory.
On 03/02/2012 04:45 PM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
I don't agree for OS X. I myself built Gentoo Prefix on several OS X
versions, Sage-on-Gentoo on top of it, as well as lmonade, and my
impression is that Sage is a good deal better supported on OS X; and I
even daresay that currently there are more
On 03/03/2012 07:50 PM, François Bissey wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:50:06 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I think Francois was referring to how easy it is to hack on the
dependencies. Right now, you just extract the spkg, modify it, tar it
up, and sage -f it.
In prefix, you would revbump (-r1) your
On 03/01/12 23:43, Keshav Kini wrote:
I don't understand. Why would it be *faster* to do version bumps if
sage-on-gentoo gets into Gentoo proper? Overlays are always more nimble
than the Gentoo tree, as far as I can see.
If we're to distribute sage via source, we need some way for users to
On 03/02/12 03:07, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com
wrote:
On 02/28/2012 07:33 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
It's not much consolation right now, but this will become easier once we
switch to git, as branches can be automatically
On 03/02/12 11:46, William Stein wrote:
On Mar 2, 2012 1:04 AM, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
mailto:rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
.
I think the vast majority of spkgs should be vanilla upstream, and for
those that we do patch, they're likely bugfixes that should make
On 03/02/12 12:47, William Stein wrote:
By Gentoo do you mean Gentoo prefix [1] everywhere in this message?
Not really. The Prefix project is just a way to run portage (the
package manager) out of a non-root directory. So, for example, you could
install the Prefix copy of portage in
On 03/01/2012 10:39 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-03-01 13:35, Jason Grout wrote:
Can you elaborate, Jeroen, just so that communication is clear by what
you mean by totally insecure?
1) A user on a public Notebook server can run totally arbitrary
commands, including for example sending
Is it possible to use these and have them documented nicely? I'd like to
add the following to the MaximaLib class (re: trac #10682),
@property
def domain(self):
r
Returns the current value of the maxima `domain` variable.
maxima_command = 'domain'
On 03/01/2012 04:00 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how situation :
sage contains all its deps (even if they're already there)
will be any better for subtle bugs than situation :
sage has the same deps, but doesn't manage them itself more than by
On 03/01/2012 04:52 PM, William Stein wrote:
I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how situation :
sage contains all its deps (even if they're already there)
will be any better for subtle bugs than situation :
sage has the same deps, but doesn't manage them itself more than by
declaring
Can someone familiar with the above please take a look at the (3 line)
patch at,
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9826
The crash no longer happens in the 5.0 betas, however it's not clear to
me what was fixed and whether or not the original fix should still be
applied.
See also:
On 02/27/12 15:51, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
2) How would we handle sage scripts (or other things that are truly
arguments and not subcommands)
2) The standard solution has been brought up, and I think it is decent
one; we use an escape mode with a double dash (e.g. sage --
some_script.sage).
On 02/28/2012 03:45 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
William Steinwst...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Keshav Kinikeshav.k...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not actually a fallback for b), though. If a file does exist with
the same name as a subcommand, b) makes it impossible to use that
On 02/28/2012 06:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
Incidentally, I think a ticket set to needs review that doesn't have
a specific *reviewer* chosen by the author of the ticket, should be
bumped back to needs work. Perhaps the biggest reason we have 279
tickets (right now) that need review is that
On 02/28/2012 07:33 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
It's not much consolation right now, but this will become easier once we
switch to git, as branches can be automatically checked for whether they
are still mergeable into trunk or not. Well, the same could be done with
patches I guess but it would
On 02/26/12 04:03, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-02-26 00:42, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I've been cleaning up this old ticket,
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2999
because most of the issues are either fixed or being worked on
independently. I don't know anything about {atlas,sage
I've been cleaning up this old ticket,
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2999
because most of the issues are either fixed or being worked on
independently. I don't know anything about {atlas,sage}.spkg though.
Does anyone know if the ticket is still valid for them?
--
To post to
On 02/16/2012 12:19 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
See this incredibly old Trac trac ticket:
http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/2259
It looks like even though our version of Trac is pretty old, even
upgrading to the latest Trac might not solve this...
*facepalm*
Thanks.
--
To post to this group, send
I notice on this ticket[1] that I didn't get emailed about the updated
patch from tmonteil. An updated attachment should work the same as a
comment, right?
Is this something that can be changed? I don't want to lose track of
tickets I'm in the process of reviewing.
[1]
On 02/12/12 20:39, Keshav Kini wrote:
Please report issues for the new notebook at
http://github.com/sagemath/sagenb ! Thanks :)
Thanks, I made this issue #38:
https://github.com/sagemath/sagenb/issues/38
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
On 02/13/12 13:51, Ryan wrote:
#this test case will pass
def TestCase1():
r'''
Examples::
sage: ascii()
'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz'
'''
pass
Nesting single quotes like this is bound to fail in surprising ways.
This test isn't even
On 02/13/12 15:46, R. Grout wrote:
so if the doctest framework doesn't do imports, do I have to import
everything I use in each doctest?
There is some[1] magic, but I gather this was a new file? Unless you add
your module to sage.all somehow, from sage.all import * won't pull it in.
You can
On 02/12/2012 01:33 AM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2012 8:39:32 PM UTC-8, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I've started this:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/PiecewiseSymbolicSEP
http://wiki.sagemath.org/PiecewiseSymbolicSEP
It's basically a brain dump at this point
On 02/12/2012 10:54 AM, Jonathan wrote:
I found my notes on proxying Sage. If you set up Sage as the root of
your server (ie proxy / to Sage) most of the paths are correct (not
all, but most). If you have a server like mine that has legacy pages
at / you have to proxy something else to Sage
On 02/11/2012 03:12 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
If you want to compile the flask notebook then I think we should
recommend installing openssl-dev but not require it. So on machines
without ssl it'll just build without ssl support, easy.
For distributed binaries we don't need ssl headers, only ssl
On 02/11/2012 03:48 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
As long as we provide instructions on how to use nginx as a backend to
provide SSL, we're not really losing functionality, just increasing
inconvenience a bit for those who want to use SSL.
It could even work out of the box. There shouldn't be a
On 02/11/2012 04:11 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/11/12 3:05 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 02/11/2012 03:48 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
As long as we provide instructions on how to use nginx as a backend to
provide SSL, we're not really losing functionality, just increasing
inconvenience a bit
On 02/11/2012 04:12 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-02-11 22:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
It could even work out of the box. There shouldn't be a problem
distributing apache/nginx linked against OpenSSL in the sage tarball.
Why not directly link to OpenSSL then? If you require people to have
On 02/11/2012 04:39 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
The GPL extends to cover all code shipped together, IIRC. So it is
different, in my understanding.
That's fine. I don't think any of us are lawyers, thank god, so like I
said in my response to Jeroen we could make it a separate tarball and
still
On 02/11/2012 04:37 PM, Jonathan wrote:
Making Sage work well with a proxy is no simple matter. I run a
number of web sites where we proxy through Apache to get SSL and
generally more robust web services facing the outside world. For this
to work well your backend needs to be proxy aware, or
On 02/11/2012 06:10 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I think it pretty much *is* the same situation license-wise. You are
just replacing the non-GPL openSSL by the non-GPL apache.
Precisely. We would have to link to OpenSSL though, whereas we
communicate with apache over a TCP/IP connection.
--
I've started this:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/PiecewiseSymbolicSEP
It's basically a brain dump at this point, but I can go back and clean
up specific ideas now with less overhead.
I've also added a link and a few paragraphs to the GSoC proposal.
--
To post to this group, send an email to
I'll +1 both sides:
1) autotools is the worst thing on Earth
2) sage should use it
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
On 02/09/2012 09:21 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
It's unfair : the problems they try to solve is basically unsolvable,
and that is _a part_ of why they're so complex.
Agreed. And other build systems that work comparably-well usually end up
looking worse.
It will hurt, but it still should to
On 02/09/2012 11:01 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 9 February 2012 14:04, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com
mailto:mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
I'll +1 both sides:
1) autotools is the worst thing on Earth
I believe if it was as bad as you make out, it would not be as popular
On 02/09/2012 01:23 PM, William Stein wrote:
I still feel that what is being proposed is very vague. Is it to
deprecate all of these variables [1] (but still fully support them for
at least one year!), and make them options to a ./configure script?
On 02/09/2012 04:18 PM, kcrisman wrote:
I think you are totally missing the point. To a newbie who has heard
of the following:
cd
mv
hg
ln
you are right. My assumption is that we would like to be as inviting
as possible to those who have not. (And they are legion; think of the
Windows
On 02/07/2012 11:20 PM, kcrisman wrote:
I hesitate to say I would be a good mentor, but there are a lot of
things in symbolics and graphics that would be appropriate for this
that I'd like to try with some of my students. Especially piecewise
functions and such. Continuing nontrivial Geogebra
On 02/08/12 16:13, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-02-08 18:40, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
In some packages, we already have some dependencies section.
I guess this could be used (or put somewhere else in the spkg) and
then used by Sage (and not the spkg-install script itself, just as
what is
Jason, On a HTC Thunderbolt with Android 2.3.4 everything works with
version 2.0!! Great job. Is this just a beta? How would I add
examples? Thanks Mike
On Jan 25, 6:46 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 1/25/12 5:13 PM, Michael Madison wrote:
Jason, On a HTC
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not* use it?
The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
have to be careful to not use it when writing .py code for the Sage
core library. But at least this matrix notation will always result
in a SyntaxError if used
On 01/26/12 17:00, William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com
wrote:
On 01/26/12 16:36, William Stein wrote:
Why *not* use it?
The standard argument against preparser stuff like this is that you
have to be careful to not use it when writing
Jason, This is an android phone. The the space I just get an ok
nothing else. Mike
On Jan 25, 6:46 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 1/25/12 5:13 PM, Michael Madison wrote:
Jason, On a HTC Thunderbolt with Android 2.3.4 if I put a couple of
spaces I get an ok
Jason, On a HTC Thunderbolt with Android 2.3.4 if I put a couple of
spaces I get an ok, but not 2. Mike
On Jan 25, 10:43 am, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 1/25/12 2:03 AM, Moritz Minzlaff wrote:
Same problems here (Samsung Galaxy Mini, 2.3.5). I can connect to
I tried it on a HTC Thunderbolt with Android 2.3.4 and it said it
could not connect to the web page. Mike
On Jan 23, 6:31 pm, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
I have now implemented (some) interacts and away of selecting pre-written
Sage commands, so it is ready for some public
On 01/24/2012 12:23 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Looking in
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html
it says that make -j4 is respected. This works really great when
building the source code.
But the documentation also suggests that it should be building in
parallel when
There's an issue at,
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5943
that can fail in different ways, depending on the architecture and
amount of memory installed. I'm hoping someone will have a better idea
for a doctest, or that there will be consensus that the existing
doctests cover the
On 01/17/12 09:29, Jason Grout wrote:
You can do this:
var('x')
instead of this:
x=var('x')
That's less error-prone (you don't have to type/mistype the variable
twice), easier to type, etc.
(completely off-topic)
There should really be a page explaining the different ways to
On 01/17/2012 05:37 PM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Unfortunately, that's not the problem. As I already said, I tried from 6
different computers using windows and linux OSes, Firefox, IE, Opera,
Konqueror as browser... All show the same behavior. So I really think this is
on the server side. That's
601 - 700 of 941 matches
Mail list logo
