Thanks Matthias.
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 19:32, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2024 at 5:31:30 AM UTC-7 Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> > Ordinarily SymPy would have dropped support for Python 3.8 by now
> > anyway regardless of SPEC 0 or NEP 29. I ca
Hi all,
My question here is: would it be problematic for Sage if SymPy were to
follow SPEC 0/NEP 29 which would mean dropping support for older
Python versions more quickly?
We are about to release SymPy 1.13 which will support Python 3.8 to
3.13. It has been asked on the SymPy mailing list
> > Since I am not a programmer and nobody in my team is a mathematician (so my
> > developers don't know Sage), I kindly ask on this list for any hints how we
> > could proceed?
> Sage mainly uses other open source C libraries to carry out these
> factorizations, so you would need to be able
Hi Doris,
I believe some parts of Sage can be used in WASM (via pyodide) but
others cannot so I am not sure if it is possible to get the
functionality that you want from Sage in WASM.
It is however possible to use SymPy in WASM (via pyodide) as
demonstrated here using JupyterLite:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 15:37, Marc Culler wrote:
>
> I think that CyPari ;and CyPari2 provide a relevant example.
>
> Some background ... CyPari is a PyPi package with binary wheels which
> predates and was the starting point for Sage's cypari2 (hence the 2 in the
> name). The basis for
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 15:27, Marc Culler wrote:
>
> The projects that will really benefit from modularization will be those that
> provide their own limited mathematical context. Developers of such projects
> will be able to choose which parts of Sage are relevant to their specific
>
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 11:51, 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
> On Friday 1 March 2024 at 12:15:36 UTC+1 John Cremona wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 11:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> OTOH, setting the degree of 0 to be -oo has an obvious advantage: it
> automaticlly gives mathematically correct
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 11:15, John Cremona wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 11:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 10:24 AM John Cremona wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 10:04, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On 1 March 2024 09:07:26 GMT, 'Martin R' via
I recently reviewed cases in the sympy polys code that handle the
degree of a zero polynomial:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/25784
My conclusion is that it is sometimes useful that deg(0) < deg(p) for
p != 0 but otherwise it is not really possible to use the value of
deg(0) for anything
Maxima's simplify_sum function produces something similar looking:
(%i4) load("simplify_sum");
(%o4) "/usr/share/maxima/5.45.1/share/solve_rec/simplify_sum.mac"
(%i5) sum(1/factorial(n^2), n, 1, inf), simpsum;
(%o5) 'sum(1/(n^2)!,n,1,inf)
(%i6) simplify_sum(%);
1/'product(n^2+%,%,1,2*n+1)
The NoneType error is presumably a bug in the sage wrapper code.
Possibly related is that Maxima cannot compute the sum with its
default algorithm. It does have a simplify_sum function that can do it
though:
(%i19) load (simplify_sum);
(%o19)
Hi all,
Yesterday I pushed a new release of python-flint version 0.6.0 to
PyPI. I expect that this release will appear in conda soon as well.
The new release can be installed with
pip install --upgrade python-flint
As in previous releases there are binary wheels available for CPython
On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 22:10, Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-7 Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> >
> >> Where would I send the PR for the Sage doctests?
>
> On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 20:48, Matthias Koeppe
> wrote:
>
Hi all,
Earlier today I pushed a new release of python-flint version 0.5.0 to
PyPI. I expect that this release will appear in conda soon as well.
The new release can be installed with
pip install python-flint
There are binary wheels available for CPython 3.9-3.12 for Windows,
OSX (intel and
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 23:22, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:50:27 AM UTC+9 tobia...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> I've now set some of the github checks as "required", so they get a small tag
> in the checks list. That should take care of (2).
>
> I am not sure if that helps or
On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 22:43, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 2:10:26 PM UTC-7 Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-7 Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> >
> >> Where would I send the PR for the Sage doctests?
> On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-7 Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
>> Where would I send the PR for the Sage doctests?
On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 20:48, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
> I've added this to ci-sage.yml to explain what to do:
>
> # To
On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 18:47, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
> PR https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/25728 updates the workflow. Apologies
> for not submitting this fix earlier.
> PRs updating the Sage doctests for changes in SymPy are very welcome.
Thanks Matthias.
Where would I send the PR for
On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 09:50, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 9:21 AM Tirthankar Mazumder
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but the Sage CI is failing for SymPy
> > again. This time, it looks to me like the issue is the fact that GitHub
> > Actions is
On Wed, 6 Sept 2023 at 18:24, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> For a while now, Python has allowed return types to be specified in
> signatures:
>
> def f() -> int:
>
> It is my understanding that this doesn't actually do any error-checking or
> type-checking — see
On Sat, 2 Sept 2023 at 12:43, 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> Actually, it seems that I have already found an instance of the problem you
> describe, except that I do not understand it.
>
> In sage/algebras/jordan_algebra.py we have two "def __ne__", one in
> JordanAlgebraSymmetricBilinear
On Sat, 2 Sept 2023 at 12:15, 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 11:39:12 UTC+2 Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Sept 2023 at 08:44, 'Martin R' via sage-devel
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> It is easy for this sort of thing to be overlook
On Sat, 2 Sept 2023 at 08:44, 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, in python3 it is no longer necessary to implement
> __ne__, if it is simply the negation of __eq__.
>
> There are currently about 200 definitions of the form
>
> def __ne__(self, other):
>
On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 16:19, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 7:57 AM wrote:
> > > a) Sage has a dual role as a library ("project") and as a distribution.
> > > NEP
> > > 29 was designed for projects, and not for software distributions.
> >
> > No, Sage is just a project, with
In the notebook you note that the results returned by sympy "do not check".
I suspect this is because sympy's solve function is being called with
check=False under the hood:
In [43]: x = symbols('x')
In [44]: eq = sqrt(x) + cbrt(x) + 2
In [45]: print(solve([eq], [x]))
[]
In [46]:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 at 06:25, 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 21:06:30 UTC+2 Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>>
>> One thing Sage could do with SymPy's RootSum is to call doit which
>> will expand using radical formulae if possible:
>>
One thing Sage could do with SymPy's RootSum is to call doit which
will expand using radical formulae if possible:
x**2/(3*a**2 + 3*a*b*x**3) + RootSum(729*_t**3*a**4*b**2 + 1,
Lambda(_t, _t*log(81*_t**2*a**3*b + x)))
In [37]: x, a, b, _t = symbols('x, a, b, _t')
In [38]: expr = x**2/(3*a**2 +
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 20:36, William Stein wrote:
>
> There's is a discussion right now on HN about LLM's trained on code
>
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657982
>
> One of the comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35658118
> points out that most of the non-GPL super permissive
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 at 15:52, Trevor Karn wrote:
>
> I don't have much understanding of how floating point arithmetic works, but
> the argument
>
> >If you're writing python code, you should expect 2*0.5 to return a
> >float. But if you're learning linear algebra for the first time and
> >typing
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 at 22:39, aw wrote:
>
>A user should be able to send any argument to a function, and it's the
>responsibility of the programmer to make sure one of two things happen:
>
> (a) the user is given the right answer;
> or (b) the user is given no answer and an error message.
That
On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 19:07, William Stein wrote:
>
> Ok, that "proof" from GPT-4 is pretty absurd nonsense to put it mildly. I
> wonder if there will be a new surge in crank math papers this year.
Apparently the way that the chat GPT models are trained is that the
source data comes from
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 20:20, William Stein wrote:
>
> Many thanks for sharing this from the *developer* point of view. I'm very
> much thinking about this problem entirely from the end-user-of-sage point
> of view (i.e., me right now).Did you also encounter problems using
> discussions with
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 16:47, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi Sage Devs,
>
> Any thoughts about enabling "Github Discussions" for SageMath on
> Github now?
I just want to share my experience of this feature being used in the
SymPy GitHub repo because I personally think that enabling it was a
mistake.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 13:10, David Roe wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 12:23 PM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
> wrote:
>>
>> Why would I need write access to the sagemath repo?
>>
>> I would have thought that I'd "somehow" (no idea how) take over the branch
>> and modify it. Or are pull
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 13:57, Georgi Guninski wrote:
>
> One of the reasons I asked this is to get correct closed form
> for stuff like sum/int 2^2^floor(x).
> Judging by the discussions, this won't work.
The integration part of that is easy and sage can do it for a single
integer interval:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 09:31, Emmanuel Charpentier
wrote:
>
> BTW :
>
> ```
> sage: a, b = var("a, b")
> sage: f(x) = floor(x)^2
> sage: f(x).integrate(x, a, b)
> // Giac share root-directory:/usr/local/sage-9/local/share/giac/
> // Giac share root-directory:/usr/local/sage-9/local/share/giac/
>
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 at 14:34, Georgi Guninski wrote:
>
> I got an integral, which fails the derivative check.
>
> For real positive x, define
> f(x)=2^(x - 1/2*I*log(-e^(-2*I*pi*x))/pi - 1/2)
> f(x) is just an obfuscation of 2^floor(x) and
> for all positive x, f(x) is integer.
> Let g(x) be the
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 at 06:43, Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 07:16:14PM +0200, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> > I have theoretical reasons to doubt the correctness
> > of integrals involving `floor`.
> >
> > The smallest testcases:
> >
> > sage: integrate(floor(x)^2,x)
> > //
On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 22:09, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
>
> The claim "bernoulli_plus admits a natural generalisation to real and complex
> numbers but bernoulli_minus does not" (made elsewhere in this thread) seems a
> bit hyperbolic. For B+ this natural generalization is -n*zeta(1-n); for B-
On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 16:24, davida...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> > Why don't we create a B+ and a B-?
>
> This was one of the idea of the ticket
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521. A new option to the bernoulli
> function was added ("plus=False"), giving the option to the user to choose
>
On Sat, 10 Sept 2022 at 18:49, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 10:04 AM davida...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm curious if the change breaks any code anywhere else in Sage (e.g.,
> > > maybe for computing q-expansions of modular forms?)...
> >
> > You guessed right. I did a
41 matches
Mail list logo
