> IMHO the most convenient place is to look in the git history, this also
> works if you don't currently have internet access for starters. The
> git-trac script implements this:
>
> $ git trac find 4f8b380
>
Commit has been merged in 6.4.rc1.
>
Very useful, but perhaps not so much to people
IMHO the most convenient place is to look in the git history, this also
works if you don't currently have internet access for starters. The
git-trac script implements this:
$ git trac find 4f8b380
Commit has been merged in 6.4.rc1.
commit 24c666295fcc1c157503fc212057c27253825099
Merge: 28c5157 b
Am 2014-11-13 um 17:46 schrieb kcrisman:
> Unfortunately, we no longer use the "Merged in" part of Trac, which was a VERY
> efficient way to find this out. Searching through git history and then trying
> to forward to the next release is something for git wizards, no doubt some
> command using tag
>
> But the naive approach proposed by the trio of mathematicians can lead
> one into a false sense of security, because of the amount of code that
> is published with a license that permits its incorporation into
> closed-source software. I have shown, beyond any reasonable doubt,
> that Math
>
> >
> > If the AMS Notices is publishing papers that should instead be
> > submitted to computer science publications
> > (Software Practice and Experience comes to mind), should computer
> > science journals publish
> > papers on pure mathematics?
>
> Bear in mind that the Notices isn't
On Friday, November 14, 2014 5:05:20 AM UTC-8, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
>
> On 11/14/2014 3:05 AM, rjf wrote:
> >
> > If the AMS Notices is publishing papers that should instead be
> > submitted to computer science publications
> > (Software Practice and Experience comes to mind), should comp
On 14 November 2014 09:22, Bruno Grenet wrote:
> 2014-11-14 10:05 GMT+01:00 rjf :
>>
>> My point here is that an unenlightened and obscure part of a problem
>> with one computer program has (I think mistakenly) been elevated to
>> a discussion of mathematics, open source, computer program reliabi
On 11/14/2014 3:05 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> If the AMS Notices is publishing papers that should instead be
> submitted to computer science publications
> (Software Practice and Experience comes to mind), should computer
> science journals publish
> papers on pure mathematics?
Bear in mind that the Not
On 2014-11-13 22:17, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
2^23, so the largest prime number is 8388593.
This is fixed as in "the old, bad constant", rather than "an improved
bound which fixed the problem", right?
I meant "fixed" as synonym for "constant".
Let me try to explain it one more time:
(1) *very
2014-11-14 10:05 GMT+01:00 rjf :
> My point here is that an unenlightened and obscure part of a problem
> with one computer program has (I think mistakenly) been elevated to
> a discussion of mathematics, open source, computer program reliability,
> etc. It was probably not reviewed by any compu
If the AMS Notices is publishing papers that should instead be submitted
to computer science publications
(Software Practice and Experience comes to mind), should computer science
journals publish
papers on pure mathematics?
In fact they sometimes do [e.g. There's a hacked-up piece of obscu
> The answer to your original question "IS that individual lines of
> doctests or doctest units themselves?" is clear since Jereon posted the
> (very nice) code he used to compute the total:
>
> $ find src/sage src/doc/en -type f |xargs cat | grep -c '^ *sage: '
> 239600
>
>
Using ag I find:
On 11/13/2014 3:05 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2014-11-12 21:33, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
On 11/11/2014 4:46 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
* The sentence "A recent tweak of another part of Sage’s matrix code had
changed the definition of “small n” to n <= 63." is wrong:
what had changed is the boun
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2014-11-13 17:07, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> It would be nice if somebody wrote a more sophisticated scanner to
>> compute the number of "doctest units", as you suggest above.
>
> I'm sure this could be added easily to the doctest framewo
On 2014-11-13 17:07, William Stein wrote:
It would be nice if somebody wrote a more sophisticated scanner to
compute the number of "doctest units", as you suggest above.
I'm sure this could be added easily to the doctest framework. I don't
really see the point though... a single "doctest unit" c
>
> > All I can see from trac is that everything happened 22 months ago. How
> do I
> > find how long it took to go from positive review to stable release?
>
> ... a search of sage-release would show the dates when the
> release manager made a particular release. I think times (in days) are
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:00 AM, mmarco wrote:
> What i mean is that, for example:
>
> sage: R. = PolynomialRing(QQ)
> sage: I = R.ideal([x^2 - y ^2, x + y +1])
> sage: I.groebner_basis()
> [x + 1/2, y + 1/2]
>
> Is just one doctest unit (since it is really one test going on, we only
> check that
What i mean is that, for example:
sage: R. = PolynomialRing(QQ)
sage: I = R.ideal([x^2 - y ^2, x + y +1])
sage: I.groebner_basis()
[x + 1/2, y + 1/2]
Is just one doctest unit (since it is really one test going on, we only
check that the groebner basis coincides with the expected one). But it
in
On 13 Nov 2014 11:27, "Jeroen Demeyer" wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-13 12:19, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote:
>>
>> di erent(sic)
>> con dent(sic)
>
> I think these are font issues with your PDF reader. You are missing the
glyphs for the ligatures "ff" and "fi". I don't have this problem (
LOn 13 Nov 2014 11:19, "Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd)" <
drkir...@kirkbymicrowave.co.uk> wrote:
> 4) It might be worth briefly stating that if (hypothetically) such a
> bug was found in Sage, rather than just report the bug, the trio could
> have inspected Sage, determined the code used
On 2014-11-13 12:19, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote:
di erent(sic)
con dent(sic)
I think these are font issues with your PDF reader. You are missing the
glyphs for the ligatures "ff" and "fi". I don't have this problem
(qpdfview on Gentoo Linux)
--
You received this message bec
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:19:37 AM UTC, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby
Microwave Ltd) wrote:
>
> The mere fact they are "black boxes" means you don't have a clue
Which patches did Wolfram apply to ATLAS&GMP, and which versions did they
use? I know we apply patches, so its extremely unlikely t
On 12 November 2014 20:18, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
> On 11/11/2014 3:41 AM, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote:
>
>> If I am honest, I am not that convinced it is a good follow up comment,
>
>
> OK, I won't put your name on it ;)
You can if I ultimately feel the submitted version is go
On 13 November 2014 11:19, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd)
wrote:
> You need to be a particularly confident use to report a bug in a trac
> ticket. I have reported bugs in software I know very little about, but
> enough to know there is a bug.
Of course I mean you do NOT have to be a part
On 12 November 2014 20:35, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
> Article at
>
> http://people.uwec.edu/whitchua/notes/sagebugprocess.pdf
>
> has been updated based on feedback.
>
> UAW
A bit more feedback - from a non-mathematician.
1) It would be better if rather than over-writing an old version of
your
2014-11-12 21:18:56 UTC+1, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
All I can see from trac is that everything happened 22 months ago. How
> do I find how long it took to go from positive review to stable release?
>
Once logged into sage's trac, follow the top-right link to "Preferences"
then go to the "Date an
On 2014-11-12 21:35, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
Future releases of Sage will use FLINT, the Fast Library for Number The-
ory, to compute the determinants of integer matrices.
Today's "future" version will very likely be the current version when
this article is published.
--
You received this messa
where Sage tried to find det(A) “modulo a few additional primes”. When a
prime p is large, Sage computes determinants (mod p) by lifting to Z. Sage
defines “large p” by reference to the size n of the matrix in question. A re-
cent tweak to another part of Sage’s matrix code had changed the definit
On 2014-11-13 10:29, mmarco wrote:
IS that individual lines of doctests or doctest units themselves?
I don't know what a "doctest unit" is, but the answer is:
lines matching /^ *sage: /
Note that this count *excludes* the Sage notebook, since that's a
separate project (at least on paper).
--
IS that individual lines of doctests or doctest units themselves?
--
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 post
On 2014-11-12 23:09, William Stein wrote:
There's also maybe 5000+ (??) lines of examples in other documentation
You also forgot Cython files. I get a total of 239600 doctests (not
counting the non-English documentation since those are translated files):
$ find src/sage src/doc/en -type f |
On 2014-11-12 21:33, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
On 11/11/2014 4:46 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
* The sentence "A recent tweak of another part of Sage’s matrix code had
changed the definition of “small n” to n <= 63." is wrong:
what had changed is the bound on p to compute the determinant over GF(p)
u
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:15:32AM -0500, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> I agree with both of you. Given that a significant part of this
> article dwelt on the closed-source bug-reporting frustration, it
> might be even more interesting if the user was taken through an
> actual bug found in Sage, an
Sadly, from a computer science perspective there are more questions raised
than answered.
Like how was it shown that this complicated system of algorithms was fast
and accurate?
(Requires testing).
Is Sage better than the other open source programs on this task for usual
(small?) cases
or large
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Ursula Whitcher
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/5/2014 8:24 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>>
* By "we write up" above, I mean you write up something very, very
rough, post it here, and get feedback.
>>>
>>>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
> On 11/11/2014 3:41 AM, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote:
>
>> If I am honest, I am not that convinced it is a good follow up comment,
>
>
> OK, I won't put your name on it ;)
>
>> but ignoring that, if this was to be the basi
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:24 AM, William Stein wrote:
* By "we write up" above, I mean you write up something very, very
rough, post it here, and get feedback.
Done!
http://people.uwec.edu/whitchua/notes/sagebugprocess.pdf
Article at
http://p
On 11/11/2014 4:46 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
* The sentence "A recent tweak of another part of Sage’s matrix code had
changed the definition of “small n” to n <= 63." is wrong:
what had changed is the bound on p to compute the determinant over GF(p)
using LinBox (for larger p, we compute determi
On 11/11/2014 3:41 AM, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote:
If I am honest, I am not that convinced it is a good follow up comment,
OK, I won't put your name on it ;)
but ignoring that, if this was to be the basis of an article, I can
think of some improvements.
Thanks for the c
>
> 2) Take out the early reference to Sage getting the determinate correct
> that Mathematica gets right. Apart from boasting rights, I am not
> convinced it adds anything useful.
>
> 4) An obvious problem with comparing two black boxes, which was the
> proposal of the trio of mathematicians
On 2014-11-11 00:20, William Stein wrote:
Jeroen Demeyer reported it -- did you also *find* it Jeroen?
Most likely I noticed the bug while working on
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14007
A few mistakes I notices while reading this:
* 50 <= n <= 63 should be 51 <= n <= 63
* The sentence "A r
On 10 Nov 2014 23:08, "Ursula Whitcher" wrote:
>
> On 11/5/2014 8:24 AM, Willia . s J. _ .m Stein wrote:
>
>> * By "we write up" above, I mean you write up something very, very
>> rough, post it here, and get feedback.
>
>
> Done!
>
> http://people.uwec.edu/whitchua/notes/sagebugprocess.pdf
>
> I
On 11 November 2014 00:53, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 12:21:12 AM UTC+1, William wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
>> > On 11/5/2014 8:24 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> >
>> >> * By "we write up" above, I mean you write up somethi
On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 12:21:12 AM UTC+1, William wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Ursula Whitcher > wrote:
> > On 11/5/2014 8:24 AM, William Stein wrote:
> >
> >> * By "we write up" above, I mean you write up something very, very
> >> rough, post it here, and get feedback.
On Monday, November 10, 2014 11:08:07 PM UTC, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
>
> Where was Volker at the time of our story?
I was a postdoc at DIAS (Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies) at that
time.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
> On 11/5/2014 8:24 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> * By "we write up" above, I mean you write up something very, very
>> rough, post it here, and get feedback.
>
>
> Done!
>
> http://people.uwec.edu/whitchua/notes/sagebugprocess.pdf
Wow, that
On 11/5/2014 8:24 AM, William Stein wrote:
* By "we write up" above, I mean you write up something very, very
rough, post it here, and get feedback.
Done!
http://people.uwec.edu/whitchua/notes/sagebugprocess.pdf
I stuck with Ticket 14032 as my example; I think the tradeoff of
interesting al
On 4 Nov 2014 19:16, "rjf"
>> Perhaps the mathematical community needs to have an open-access database
of bug reports for commercial software. A discussion of the usefulness,
legality, practicality, commercial benefits etc. of such a database could
be interesting.
> think it's
> not the "mathema
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:27:03 PM UTC, William wrote:
>
> Yes. Note that though Volker called it a "subtle bug"
What I meant was: not easily found since it only occurred in a narrow
window of input parameters (i.e. matrix sizes).
--
You received this message because you are subscrib
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
> At some point, William wrote:
>
>> I wrote that det code in Sage (though in Sage-6.4 it'll likely be
>> replaced by a call to FLINT...). It computes det(A) in a very
>> interesting way, which is asymptotically massively faster than
>> Mathem
At some point, William wrote:
I wrote that det code in Sage (though in Sage-6.4 it'll likely be
replaced by a call to FLINT...). It computes det(A) in a very
interesting way, which is asymptotically massively faster than
Mathematica. To compute det(A), choose a random vector v and solve
Ax = v u
>
> > It would be interesting to do a query against how many "minor" ones were
> > created by the same people... I was expecting fewer (there are about 800
> > currently open), but perhaps more recently people have gotten better
> about
> > this? Still, there is very little triage - it mostly
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 5:28:44 PM UTC, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
>
> essentially up to the folks working on a given ticket? Is the rule that
> "blocker"-level bugs must be fixed before releasing a new version of Sage?
Yes. There is a trac query for blocker tickets
on http://trac.sagemath.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:44 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>> How DOES bug prioritization work in Sage? You can pick
>> blocker/critical/major/minor/trivial when you're creating a ticket.
>> Does someone double-check those choices, or is prioritization
>> essentially up to the folks working on a given ticke
>
> How DOES bug prioritization work in Sage? You can pick
> blocker/critical/major/minor/trivial when you're creating a ticket.
> Does someone double-check those choices, or is prioritization
> essentially up to the folks working on a given ticket? Is the rule that
> "blocker"-level bugs mu
On 11/4/2014 6:04 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
Agree. A reasonable article should
[...]
b) talk about bug tracking and prioritization, stopgaps
How DOES bug prioritization work in Sage? You can pick
blocker/critical/major/minor/trivial when you're creating a ticket.
Does someone double-check t
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Ursula Whitcher wrote:
> On 11/3/2014 4:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure the
>> AMS would be very interesting in publishing more pieces that involve
>> computational mathematics/software, and likely only don't because they
>> don't have quality submissions
On 11/3/2014 4:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
I'm sure the
AMS would be very interesting in publishing more pieces that involve
computational mathematics/software, and likely only don't because they
don't have quality submissions enough to choose from. I published
one there several years ago about
I don't relish the prospect of another article that essentially
says,
We love open source because (whatever you trot out as advantages).
People DO test and find bugs in closed source programs.
For example, running them on cases for which the answer is already
known (e.g. solving differential equa
On Monday, November 3, 2014 5:01:03 PM UTC-8, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby
Microwave Ltd) wrote:
...
snip
While I usually find Kirby's posts to be so self-cancelling under close
examination
that no response is required,
I think he has a point here.
In fact there used to be a newsgroup for
>
>
> > I can see that there could be a number of follow up comments about
> > the article. But too much emphasis on Sage's ability to perform the
> > computation correctly would make it like a childish pi**ing contest.
> >
> > Agree. A reasonable article should
>
Yes.
> >
>
On 11/4/14, 7:04, Volker Braun wrote:
I can see that there could be a number of follow up comments about
the article. But too much emphasis on Sage's ability to perform the
computation correctly would make it like a childish pi**ing contest.
Agree. A reasonable article should
a) giv
On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 1:01:03 AM UTC, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby
Microwave Ltd) wrote:
>
> I can see that there could be a number of follow up comments about the
> article. But too much emphasis on Sage's ability to perform the computation
> correctly would make it like a childish pi**ing c
On 3 Nov 2014 22:05, "William Stein" wrote:
> I usually ignore RJF, but in this I just want to encourage everybody
> else to also ignore him too... regarding his discouragement about
> everything, especially Ursula's excellent suggestion. I'm sure the
> AMS would be very interesting in publishi
In case somebody is writing a followup, I have a small vignette on the
topic of linear algebra with integers: Back in the day I found that Maple
9.01 cannot compute the rank of a zero matrix of size 1x6.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.soft-sys.math.maple/EXrKCU9Xdx4/fyTnF--8-a0J
On Monda
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:52 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, October 24, 2014 7:32:37 PM UTC-7, jason wrote:
>>
>> On 10/24/14, 20:55, Jason Grout wrote:
>> > P.S. It would be interesting to see if Sage can do the calculation they
>> > identified as buggy in mathematica. That would make for a cool
On Friday, October 24, 2014 7:32:37 PM UTC-7, jason wrote:
>
> On 10/24/14, 20:55, Jason Grout wrote:
> > P.S. It would be interesting to see if Sage can do the calculation they
> > identified as buggy in mathematica. That would make for a cool
> > follow-up editorial.
> >
>
I disagree. Th
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:14:43 AM UTC-7, Harald Schilly wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:25:08 PM UTC+1, parisse wrote:
>>
>> Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here?
>> I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the
>> fastest: 0.
On Friday, October 24, 2014 7:55:39 PM UTC-5, jason wrote:
>
>
>
> P.S. It would be interesting to see if Sage can do the calculation they
> identified as buggy in mathematica. That would make for a cool
> follow-up editorial.
>
So is somebody actively working on a followup editorial/ letter
The p-adic algorithm is indeed very well known (and implemented in giac).
But my point is that Bareiss is faster here (the matrix has huge
coefficients but is small), even if you don't care to prove that the
determinant is correct once you have (probably) found the last invariant
factor and pol
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Harald Schilly
wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:25:08 PM UTC+1, parisse wrote:
>>
>> Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here?
>> I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the
>> fastest: 0.02s on my Mac, vs abo
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:25:08 PM UTC+1, parisse wrote:
>
> Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here?
> I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the
> fastest: 0.02s on my Mac, vs about 1s for (proven) modular/p-adic.
> sage 6.3 returns the ans
Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here?
I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the
fastest: 0.02s on my Mac, vs about 1s for (proven) modular/p-adic.
sage 6.3 returns the answer in 0.12s on my computer, while Maxima takes 15s.
--
You received this
On 10/25/14, 21:38, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Oct 25, 2014 5:53 PM, "Jason Grout" wrote:
On 10/25/14, 15:04, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
On 10/25/14, 0:07, William Stein wrote:
They are
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 7:35:06 PM UTC-7, Robert Dodier wrote:
>
> Is there a tl;dr somewhere which says what is the problem that Mma got
> wrong? and I gather there is an incorrect integral too?
>
Here's an integral maxima gets wrong with abs_integrate loaded:
integrate(integrate(abs(e
On 2014-10-25, William Stein wrote:
> They are fun aren't they -- no login required. Here's one
> illustrating two of the integrals in that article that Mathematica
> gets wrong -- it has some 2d and 3d plots (!):
Is there a tl;dr somewhere which says what is the problem that Mma got
wrong? an
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2014 5:53 PM, "Jason Grout" wrote:
>>
>> On 10/25/14, 15:04, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Jason Grout
>>> wrote:
On 10/25/14, 0:07, William Stein wrote:
>
>
> They are fun
On Oct 25, 2014 5:53 PM, "Jason Grout" wrote:
>
> On 10/25/14, 15:04, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Jason Grout
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/25/14, 0:07, William Stein wrote:
They are fun aren't they -- no login required.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that often
On 10/25/14, 15:04, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
On 10/25/14, 0:07, William Stein wrote:
They are fun aren't they -- no login required.
It seems that often, though, the login page or the project settings page
flashes up for a second or less, whic
On 25 Oct 2014 19:40, "Volker Braun" wrote:
> In any case, the real WTF of the article (besides the low information
density) is that Wolfram sat on the bug report for >1 year and did nothing
about it.
There must be tons of Sage bugs reported which don't get fixed. You can
argue about the serious
On 2014-10-25, Volker Braun wrote:
> --=_Part_265_1870362412.1414262432518
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:44:06 PM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, bugs can be (dare I say-- are) introduced by allowing
>> random people to modify code.
>>
>
> Flame
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 10/25/14, 0:07, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> They are fun aren't they -- no login required.
>
>
> It seems that often, though, the login page or the project settings page
> flashes up for a second or less, which is confusing. Do you know why
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:44:06 PM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
>
> Indeed, bugs can be (dare I say-- are) introduced by allowing
> random people to modify code.
>
Flamebait or just hilariously wrong misconception of open source?
In any case, the real WTF of the article (besides the low information
A fairly bogus article for AMS.
First of all, reporting a bug in the calculation of determinant in
Mathematica does not require several pages.
Secondly, if an algorithm for a problem has a flaw, and the same algorithm
is used in 2 CAS, it doesn't
support anything that the answers are the same.
On 10/25/14, 0:07, William Stein wrote:
They are fun aren't they -- no login required.
It seems that often, though, the login page or the project settings page
flashes up for a second or less, which is confusing. Do you know why
the signup page or settings page might come up first, then be r
On 25 Oct 2014 05:07, "William Stein" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
> > And here's a public worksheet:
> >
https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/49a2531d-9d02-42c9-9db6-f9551fbfa59e/files/2014-10-24-212837.sagews
> >
> > (Thanks, William, for making public worksh
On 10/24/14, 20:55, Jason Grout wrote:
P.S. It would be interesting to see if Sage can do the calculation they
identified as buggy in mathematica. That would make for a cool
follow-up editorial.
And here's a public worksheet:
https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/49a2531d-9d02-42c9-9db6-f9551f
87 matches
Mail list logo
