On 28 January 2010 23:46, Bill Hart wrote:
> One sensible solution would seem to be to set
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64=/usr/local/gcc-4.4.1-sun-linker/lib/sparcv9 on t2,
> but this actually doesn't seem to work. I'm not sure why.
>
> However it seems that one can just add
> /usr/local/gcc-4.4.1-sun-linke
On Jan 28, 8:00 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> are there some examples how to use R from Sage?
>
> I tried to search here:
>
> http://www.sagemath.org/help.html
>
> http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/
>
> I also tried to search sage-devel, for "R" and "R statistics" and "R
> statistical",
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Cohen wrote:
> I am logged on as math.cohen, and can edit my notebooks. I can see
> all of the published notebooks, but when I click "edit a copy" I get
> error messages.
>
> e.g.
> http://sagenb.org/home/pub/1445/
>
> "edit" leads to
> http://sagenb.org/hom
Hi,
are there some examples how to use R from Sage?
I tried to search here:
http://www.sagemath.org/help.html
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/
I also tried to search sage-devel, for "R" and "R statistics" and "R
statistical", but didn't find anything. So the next time, I'll at
least find
I am logged on as math.cohen, and can edit my notebooks. I can see
all of the published notebooks, but when I click "edit a copy" I get
error messages.
e.g.
http://sagenb.org/home/pub/1445/
"edit" leads to
http://sagenb.org/home/pub/1445/edit_published_page
The worksheet operation "edit_publishe
One sensible solution would seem to be to set
LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64=/usr/local/gcc-4.4.1-sun-linker/lib/sparcv9 on t2,
but this actually doesn't seem to work. I'm not sure why.
However it seems that one can just add
/usr/local/gcc-4.4.1-sun-linker/lib/sparcv9 to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH (it
doesn't matter
2010/1/28 Dr. David Kirkby :
> Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> 2010/1/28 Dr. David Kirkby :
>>>
>>> The problem is that 64-bit libraries should never be in /usr/local/lib.
>>> Instead they should be in /usr/local/lib/sparcv9.
>>
>> I am not installing MPIR on these machines, as I do not have root
>> access
Sorry, I don't know.
But I'm cc'ing the sage-support list, whichmight have more people who
know more about Sage's functionality for doing probability and
statistic computations.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:09 PM, michel paul wrote:
> Next week we start probability, and I'm working on a Sage worksh
Bill Hart wrote:
So on t2 there is no /usr/local/lib/sparcv9, so that's a bit useless!
Does this mean t2 is not capable of running 64 bit binaries?
No, since gcc is not installed under /usr/local, there is no
/usr/local/lib/sparcv9. What few programs do exist in /usr/local are probably
just 3
Bill Hart wrote:
2010/1/28 Dr. David Kirkby :
The problem is that 64-bit libraries should never be in /usr/local/lib.
Instead they should be in /usr/local/lib/sparcv9.
I am not installing MPIR on these machines, as I do not have root
access on either. Thus whatever is in /usr/local/lib is not
OK, on gcc54 only the C++ tests fail. But they always did. There is
actually a library missing from the machine which is needed to run
binaries compiled by the C++ compiler. All the C test binaries pass on
gcc54.
So the only issue is actually on t2. Basically I think there is a
whole pile of wrong
As far as I know that is only necessary on OS X. Anyhow, I tried it
just in case, and no change.
Thanks for the suggestion though.
Bill.
2010/1/28 Craig Citro :
>> So it can't find libmpir.so.8. But I don't see why.
>>
>> echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>> /usr/lib/sparcv9:/home/wbhart/mpir-1.3.0/.libs
>
> So it can't find libmpir.so.8. But I don't see why.
>
> echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> /usr/lib/sparcv9:/home/wbhart/mpir-1.3.0/.libs
>
Total random guess: could it be that you need this to be in your
DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH, too?
-cc
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
T
I forgot to mention, the long deprecated function mpz_random has also
finally been removed.
Bill.
2010/1/28 Bill Hart :
> Hi all,
>
> it is with pleasure that we (finally) officially release MPIR 1.3.0.
> It is available at our website http://www.mpir.org/
>
> Please note the following important
On t2 all the tests fail, complaining of the same issue. If I actually
go into the tests directory and run one of the test scripts directly,
here is what it does:
./t-modlinv
ld.so.1: t-modlinv: fatal: libmpir.so.8: open failed: No such file or directory
Killed
So let's see what the script does:
So on t2 there is no /usr/local/lib/sparcv9, so that's a bit useless!
Does this mean t2 is not capable of running 64 bit binaries?
2010/1/28 Dr. David Kirkby :
> Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> it is with pleasure that we (finally) officially release MPIR 1.3.0.
>> It is available at our webs
2010/1/28 Dr. David Kirkby :
> Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> it is with pleasure that we (finally) officially release MPIR 1.3.0.
>> It is available at our website http://www.mpir.org/
>>
>> Please note the following important things:
>>
>> * I have been unable to get any tests to pass on ul
2010/1/28 Dr. David Kirkby :
> Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> it is with pleasure that we (finally) officially release MPIR 1.3.0.
>> It is available at our website http://www.mpir.org/
>>
>> Please note the following important things:
>>
>> * I have been unable to get any tests to pass on ul
Bill Hart wrote:
Hi all,
it is with pleasure that we (finally) officially release MPIR 1.3.0.
It is available at our website http://www.mpir.org/
Please note the following important things:
* I have been unable to get any tests to pass on ultrasparc2 machines,
I've just tried on an UltraSPAR
On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Martin Rubey wrote:
Mike Hansen writes:
I'm not sure whether you saw my answer yet... It shows that you
can have
full evaluation (as in Python), and still work modulo n.
William was just saying that the mod function in
mod(2^(2^517)+1,84977118993*2^520+1) cou
Mike Hansen writes:
>> I'm not sure whether you saw my answer yet... It shows that you can have
>> full evaluation (as in Python), and still work modulo n.
>
> William was just saying that the mod function in
> mod(2^(2^517)+1,84977118993*2^520+1) couldn't easily recognize of the
> structure in t
Bill Hart wrote:
Hi all,
it is with pleasure that we (finally) officially release MPIR 1.3.0.
It is available at our website http://www.mpir.org/
Please note the following important things:
* I have been unable to get any tests to pass on ultrasparc2 machines,
including t2 (solaris) and gcc54
Hi all,
it is with pleasure that we (finally) officially release MPIR 1.3.0.
It is available at our website http://www.mpir.org/
Please note the following important things:
* I have been unable to get any tests to pass on ultrasparc2 machines,
including t2 (solaris) and gcc54 (linux). I am confi
TimP wrote:
This is apparently an old subject. My new 4.3 version of SAGE can
not open current copies of the notebooks I have in the earlier version
of SAGE (4.2.1). The old version seems unable to download current
"editions" of the notebook's worksheets. Or--the new version can't
find them.
Thanks ! This is exactly what I meant. Where shoud it be placed,
though ? In the constructor of real numbers or in the CFF
constructor ? I guess I could do it, but I'm just starting developing
for Sage...
Alex
On 28 jan, 14:11, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 at 04:21AM -0800, ablondin wro
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 at 04:21AM -0800, ablondin wrote:
> Hello, everyone,
> I would like to create a real number from its continued fraction
> expansion. I know it is possible to call ``CFF([0,1,1,1,1,1,1]).value()
> `` to have an approximation of the golden ratio, but I would like to
> pass an iter
Hi Harald,
On Jan 28, 11:56 am, Harald Schilly wrote:
> Just because I tried and failed, could this also be made possible for
> polynomials in more than 1 variable?
I don't know. Would be nice, though.
> i.e. is there something that can
> do this?
>
> sage: f(x,y) = ZZ[x,y](x+y+1)
Wait, this i
Hello, everyone,
I would like to create a real number from its continued fraction
expansion. I know it is possible to call ``CFF([0,1,1,1,1,1,1]).value()
`` to have an approximation of the golden ratio, but I would like to
pass an iterator as an argument to the function ``CFF(...)`` so that I
can g
On Jan 28, 11:50 am, Simon King wrote:
> And for solving modulo something, this should work:
>
> sage: f.roots(ring=GF(7))
> []
> sage: f.roots(ring=GF(5))
> [(4, 1), (3, 2)]
>
Just because I tried and failed, could this also be made possible for
polynomials in more than 1 variable? i.e. is there
Postscriptum:
On Jan 28, 10:26 am, zieglerk wrote:
> ...
> returns false. And that's a good thing, of course. But now I want to
> solve f == 0 mod 7, then I would naturally use ...
And for solving modulo something, this should work:
sage: f.roots(ring=GF(7))
[]
sage: f.roots(ring=GF(5))
[(4, 1
Hi!
On Jan 28, 10:36 am, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
> You could convert to the SymbolicRing SR where the equations live:
Or you could avoid the SymbolicRing (I don't know what is better). For
example:
sage: R = PolynomialRing(ZZ,x)
sage: f = R.random_element(degree = 3)
sage: f
-6*x^3 - 3*x + 1
sage:
On Jan 26, 8:54 pm, gsw wrote:
> it seems that there are two different people reporting two different
> problems here.
Hi, I'm the one doing the mirror pages. I don't know all the different
types of apple osx systems, so I can only upload what I get. Does
anybody have some idea how many variation
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:26 AM, zieglerk wrote:
> My problem is, how to transform a polynomial, say f(x)=x^2+1 into the
> corresponding equation f(x)==0?
>
> For example, I start with
>
> R = PolynomialRing(ZZ,x)
> f = R.random_element(degree = 3)
You could convert to the SymbolicRing SR
Hi,
My problem is, how to transform a polynomial, say f(x)=x^2+1 into the
corresponding equation f(x)==0?
For example, I start with
R = PolynomialRing(ZZ,x)
f = R.random_element(degree = 3)
Then
f == 0
returns false. And that's a good thing, of course. But now I want to
solve f == 0 mod 7, t
34 matches
Mail list logo
