On 13 Feb., 09:22, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:56:35 PM UTC-8, emil wrote:
If you want to use the multiuser sage server and access it from
other computers on the LAN then you need bridged adapter and connect
to the IP of the VM (there should
Hitting the nail one the head! sounds like your solution (I mean numpy
arrays with CDF elements, which I didn't know was possible) is going
to be perfect for me.
Thank you so much!
On 13 fév, 01:30, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Feb 12, 1:39 pm, Pierre pierre.guil...@gmail.com wrote: i
On 2/12/12 1:25 PM, D. S. McNeil wrote:
Anyway, I'm not sure if Sage matrices can be indexed by symbolic
variables like this. [Whenever I say you can't do something in Sage
someone proves me wrong, but I'm not familiar with the trick if there
is one.]
You're right. Matrices can only be
On 2/13/12 2:42 AM, emil wrote:
When creating it I studied the docs by
Dan Drake and Jason Grout in detail and tried to implement it the best
I could.
I should point out that I'm also no pro sys admin, but I try to be
careful and read a lot about it.
Jason
--
To post to this group, send
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 at 05:42AM -0600, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/13/12 2:42 AM, emil wrote:
When creating it I studied the docs by
Dan Drake and Jason Grout in detail and tried to implement it the best
I could.
I should point out that I'm also no pro sys admin, but I try to be
careful and
In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.support, you wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:40 am, Keshav Kini keshav.k...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess his question is why Sage picks a (generic) as a generator name
for QQ[2^(1/3)] but sqrt2 (hard-coded) for QQ[2^(1/2)].
-Keshav
Thanks for the comments, but let me
On 13/02/2012 14:22, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.support, you wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:40 am, Keshav Kinikeshav.k...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess his question is why Sage picks a (generic) as a generator name
for QQ[2^(1/3)] but sqrt2 (hard-coded) for QQ[2^(1/2)].
-Keshav
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Feb 12, 1:39 pm, Pierre pierre.guil...@gmail.com wrote:
i think zz above might still be considered as a 1 x 1 matrix instead
of a complex number, somehow, and this may be slowing things down.
No, that's not the problem. It's
I see. Well I *do* have hundreds of 2x2 matrices to multiply out so
i'm better off storing them as numpy matrices throughout... thanks for
your explanations though.
Pierre
On 13 fév, 18:32, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Nils Bruin
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Pierre pierre.guil...@gmail.com wrote:
I see. Well I *do* have hundreds of 2x2 matrices to multiply out so
i'm better off storing them as numpy matrices throughout... thanks for
your explanations though.
Pierre
You might consider using Cython and writing a
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Pierre pierre.guil...@gmail.com wrote:
I see. Well I *do* have hundreds of 2x2 matrices to multiply out so
i'm better off storing them as numpy matrices throughout... thanks for
your
Anyone using numpy from Sage should beware of the following:
sage: import numpy
sage: m = numpy.matrix([[1,2],[3,4]])
sage: m[:,0]
matrix([[1, 3]])
sage: m[:,int(0)]
matrix([[1],
[3]])
That is, if you use a Sage integer to index a numpy matrix, you don't
get the expected shape back. I
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Pierre pierre.guil...@gmail.com wrote:
I see. Well I *do* have hundreds of 2x2 matrices to multiply out
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 2/13/12 12:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM, William Steinwst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon,
On Monday, February 13, 2012 12:42:14 AM UTC-8, emil wrote:
Right at the moment loggins are not disabled but all servers (ssh,
ftp) are off by default. Passwords for the accounts are not published
(my defaults are like strong 20 char passwords).
Thats fine as long as you don't use MD5 for
Thanks for solution and explanation! (Yet difference is still a little
mysterious to me...) Works fine also with multiple sums. It would be
impossible to work with tensors without this.
It would be nice to have some easy way to construct and handle tensors
(Einstein summation convention,
On 13 Feb., 23:19, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2012 12:42:14 AM UTC-8, emil wrote:
Right at the moment loggins are not disabled but all servers (ssh,
ftp) are off by default. Passwords for the accounts are not published
(my defaults are like strong
Hi everybody.
Exists any command in SAGE to get the spent cpu-cycles per second in
SAGE?
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
You probably want wall time spent on executing a statement. This is best
measured with timeit:
sage: timeit('1+1')
625 loops, best of 3: 552 ns per loop
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
thanks by your attention Volker, ... but this command return the
cycles per second measure?
On 14 fev, 01:52, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
You probably want wall time spent on executing a statement. This is best
measured with timeit:
sage: timeit('1+1')
625 loops, best of 3: 552
On Feb 13, 8:05 pm, juaninf juan...@gmail.com wrote:
thanks by your attention Volker, ... but this command return the
cycles per second measure?
If your processor is running at 2 GHz, it means it's doing 2 * 10^9
cycles per second. If sage is the only job that is using significant
computing
21 matches
Mail list logo
