On 12/ 8/10 06:28 PM, rjf wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:01 am, David Kirkby wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear from Wolfram Research on the use of Wolfram
Alpha for this.
Why would they bother to reply?
Because it would be courteous to do so. They did reply - see my post. Basically
making use of W
> > in Mathematica (and maybe something like it in Sage).
> > Expand[(x^(2^(2^29))+1)^2]
Sage uses Ginac/Pynac for this. It just hangs:
sage: expand((x^(2^(2^29))+1)^2)
^C
Unhandled SIGSEGV: A segmentation fault occurred in Sage.
Th
On 8 December 2010 23:31, rjf wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 8, 10:45 am, kcrisman wrote:
>> > And why should anyone care? Do you think that Wolfram Alpha will last
>> > longer than Mathematica?
That's such a stupid question, I'm not going to answer it.
>> I think the point was that not everyone who migh
On Dec 8, 10:45 am, kcrisman wrote:
> > And why should anyone care? Do you think that Wolfram Alpha will last
> > longer than Mathematica?
>
> I think the point was that not everyone who might want to do this
> would have access to Mma, but that (for now) they would all have
> access to W|A. J
> And why should anyone care? Do you think that Wolfram Alpha will last
> longer than Mathematica?
I think the point was that not everyone who might want to do this
would have access to Mma, but that (for now) they would all have
access to W|A. Just to clarify - I don't really have a horse in t
On Dec 6, 11:15 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> I agree, people of all backgrounds can make significant contributions.
Logically, nothing to argue with
"There may be a person X of {no particular specified background} who
can make a significant contribution"
I think we agree that we have higher
On Dec 6, 8:01 am, David Kirkby wrote:
> This presupposes that people of fairly high mathematical knowledge are
> good at writing software.
>
> I'm yet to be convinced that having a PhD in maths, or studying for
> one, makes you good at writing software tests
I quite agree. Or even writing so
On Dec 6, 11:15 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:01 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> > On 4 December 2010 05:32, William Stein wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:40 PM, David Kirkby
> >> wrote:
>[*snip*]
> > It's fairly clear in the past that the "Expected" result from a test
>
> On the topic of verifying tests, I think internal consistency checks
> are much better, both pedagogically and for verifiability, than
> external checks against other (perhaps inaccessible) systems. For
> example, the statement above that checks a power series against its
> definition and propert
To follow up my own thing, maybe it would be possible to write a spkg-
check that tries to detect nose, exits gracefully if it's not there,
and otherwise uses a system nose... though of course then one would be
using the system Python... wouldn't one?
- kcrisman
--
To post to this group, send an
On Dec 2, 1:46 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 12/2/10 12:42 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose
> > from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg-
> > check that relied on the internet... but that wouldn't be ideal, I
> >
On Dec 2, 10:20 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On the topic of verifying tests, I think internal consistency checks
> are much better, both pedagogically and for verifiability, than
> external checks against other (perhaps inaccessible) systems. For
> example, the statement above that checks a power
On 12/2/10 12:42 PM, kcrisman wrote:
That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose
from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg-
check that relied on the internet... but that wouldn't be ideal, I
think.
But that would also prevent yet another spkg to
> >> I suggested 'nose' was added a long time ago
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/928632...
>
> >> the only person to reply (Robert Bradshaw) disagreed.
>
> I think there's a distinction between an spkg that people might find
> useful to use with Sage, and an s
On Dec 1, 5:30 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> >> But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's
> >> already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit
> >> anything to Sage anymore because of this.
>
> > :
On Dec 1, 11:25 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
> I rather suspect the input, which shows how to use the taylor
> function, could be any of numerous inputs. The one chosen
>
> sage: taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3)
>
> gives a huge output which is going to be next to impossible to verify
> analytically.
For th
On Dec 2, 11:36 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
> >> Verifying correctness of tests is not a waste of time.
>
> > I don't know what the current coverage is, but lets say for argument
> > it needs another 1000 tests to get 100% coverage. It's better t
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's
>> already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit
>> anything to Sage anymore because of this.
>
> :(
>
>> I do think it would be good to start using nos
> But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's
> already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit
> anything to Sage anymore because of this.
:(
> I do think it would be good to start using nosetest
> (http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/
19 matches
Mail list logo
