Hello all,
As I was constructing some Free Modules over the symmetric functions, I
fall on this (sage 6.4.beta2 for my version (yes, that's probably old)):
sage: SymmetricFunctions(QQ) in CommutativeRings()
False
sage: SymmetricFunctions(QQ).a_realization() in CommutativeRings()
True
I would
Hey Nicolas,
I confirm this issue with 6.5.beta0. I think that change is sufficient
(as a haunting voice echoes in the wind, along with adding a doctest).
Welcome back.
Best,
Travis
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:19:16 AM UTC-8, Nicolas Borie wrote:
Hello all,
As I was constructing
Hi Tom,
On 2014-11-19, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
In situations where it looks like real abuse has occurred, a committee
of arbiters should exist to rule on it. Otherwise, we're left with
mob rule and the onlooker effect (where nobody speaks up to stop
abuse, assuming
In situations where it looks like real abuse has occurred, a committee
of arbiters should exist to rule on it. Otherwise, we're left with
mob rule and the onlooker effect (where nobody speaks up to stop
abuse, assuming somebody else will take care of it).
My experience with sage lists is
Thanks Francois! That was it, I didn't have gcc-c++ installed.
In the list of the requirements given in the README file, gcc-c++ is not
mentioned (but gcc is). Perhaps it should be added to that list.
Nico.
El miércoles, 19 de noviembre de 2014 20:16:09 UTC-2, François escribió:
This test if
Hum… I thought we had updated that as part of the ticket to upgrade the gcc
included
in sage to 4.9.1. May be Jeroen missed that particular file, I am sure we have
mentioned
g++ in other parts of the documentation.
François
On 20/11/2014, at 23:37, Nicolás Sirolli nmsiro...@gmail.com wrote:
Strange, we have AC_PROG_CXX() before AC_CHECK_HEADER([complex.h], ...)
Can you post a bit more of the output?
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:07:18 PM UTC, Nicolás Sirolli wrote:
Hi,
After obtaining the source code from the git repository, I tried to build
Sage but it failed. This is
Well, except that a few people here said that they felt insulted in the
past and didn't know what to do about it. And some expressed the need of
some kind of code of conduct... William even said he knew some people had
left because of some bad behavior. So just saying everthing is fine
because we
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 5:06:43 AM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
The truth is that I have no idea how to say gender-neutral sentences
in english without making my sentences non-deterministic, i.e. a
bunch of 20 [guys|girls] .* each expressing [his|her] own voice. And
I hate
Hello !
To Viviane:
Well, except that a few people here said that they felt insulted in the
past
and didn't know what to do about it. And some expressed the need of some
kind of code of conduct...
Indeed, but I do not know if they will be more protected by a code of
conduct. Actual insults is
Sure. You can find the full output in
http://pastebin.com/AqRU1iEy
El jueves, 20 de noviembre de 2014 09:28:41 UTC-2, Volker Braun escribió:
Strange, we have AC_PROG_CXX() before AC_CHECK_HEADER([complex.h], ...)
Can you post a bit more of the output?
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Don't worry, native English speakers have no idea, either. I read the
sage-sexist remark as a joke, but after Mike's followup, maybe not. In my
experience, 95% of the
I was somewhat serious. The irony was that I really thought it was a
communication problem (either intentional or
On 2014-11-19, Mike Zabrocki mike.zabro...@gmail.com wrote:
--=_Part_540_2024061462.1416427012442
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
A bunch of 10~20 guys who can talk together for days about having or
not a code of conduct, each expressing his own voice and mixing it
with the
On 20 November 2014 01:54, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote:
What you posted looks good. But we need to test it for arg(z), re(z),
im(z) and any other non-analytic function that we can find.
(1) - re(x)==(conjugate(x)+x)/2
So here (20) is a simpler expression for derivative of arg:
(16) - abs(x)==sqrt(x*conjugate(x))
Compiled code for abs has been cleared.
Compiled code for arg has been cleared.
1 old definition(s) deleted for function or rule abs
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote:
On 20 November 2014 01:54, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote:
What you posted looks good. But we need to test it for arg(z), re(z),
im(z) and any other non-analytic function that we can find.
(1) -
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote:
So here (20) is a simpler expression for derivative of arg:
(16) - abs(x)==sqrt(x*conjugate(x))
Compiled code for abs has been cleared.
Compiled code for arg has been cleared.
1 old definition(s) deleted
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote:
So here (20) is a simpler expression for derivative of arg:
(16) - abs(x)==sqrt(x*conjugate(x))
Compiled code for abs has been cleared.
Perhaps this is more or less where Richardson's theorem enters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson%27s_theorem
We badly want a reliable way to determine when an expression is
identically zero. In general this is not possible, but if we restrict
our selves to a subset of elementary
with new git, one has new default behavour of git push. Namely, you can
choose
git config --global push.default matching
or
git config --global push.default simple
Which one should one choose for Sage workflow?
(sorry for possibly dumb question).
Dima
--
You received this message because you
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote:
Perhaps this is more or less where Richardson's theorem enters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson%27s_theorem
We badly want a reliable way to determine when an expression is
identically zero. In general this
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2014 10:42 AM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a reason we need to have our own version?
Actually, I think there is, because see the original ticket #9675:
I must say I detected some problems
I guess it's not quite that bad. The fix was perhaps hackish.
sage: import brian
/Users/.../sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/brian/utils/sparse_patch/__init__.py:39:
UserWarning: Couldn't find matching sparse matrix patch for scipy version
0.14.0, but in most cases this shouldn't be a
On 20 November 2014 17:24, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
with new git, one has new default behavour of git push. Namely, you can
choose
git config --global push.default matching
or
git config --global push.default simple
Which one should one choose for Sage workflow?
(sorry for
On 2014-11-19, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
In situations where it looks like real abuse has occurred, a committee
of arbiters should exist to rule on it.
Instituting a committee of authorities seems misdirected -- unless one
takes an inclusive approach and declares that all
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=git+config+global+push.default+simplel=1
On 11/20/2014 09:04 PM, John Cremona wrote:
On 20 November 2014 17:24, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
with new git, one has new default behavour of git push. Namely, you can
choose
git config --global push.default
There isn't anything Sage-specific here. If in doubt use simple.
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 5:24:57 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
with new git, one has new default behavour of git push. Namely, you can
choose
git config --global push.default matching
or
git config --global
Can somebody help me count the votes? I made pass through this long
and complicated thread, and here's what I seem to have got:
FOR a code of conduct, possibly suitably word-smithed (7):
Jan Groenewald
Travis Scrimshaw
Anne Schilling
Mike Zabrocki
Andrew Mathas
Ben Salisbury
Viviane Pons
On 20 November 2014 12:56, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Can you give an example of an expression that cannot be decided by
the Richardson's theorem?
Well, no not exactly. Richardson's theorem is not about individual
expressions, it is about decidability, i.e.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote:
On 20 November 2014 12:56, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Can you give an example of an expression that cannot be decided by
the Richardson's theorem?
Well, no not exactly. Richardson's theorem is
Dear all,
I've read the whole thread, and I have the impress that there are two
distinct issues that are addressed. That's part of the reason people
don't agree I think on the proposals. The first issue is to make sure
that there are no public insults on sage-devel, trac, etc. by organizing
In the form it was presented at the very beginning I am strongly
against. This is completely infantilizing. That is a good idea to make
a vote, but please make it clear what the vote is about...
Vincent
2014-11-20 14:14 UTC−07:00, Bruno Grenet bruno.gre...@gmail.com:
Dear all,
I've read the
Hello !!
I've read the whole thread, and I have the impress that there are two
distinct issues that are addressed. That's part of the reason people don't
agree I think on the proposals. The first issue is to make sure that there
are no public insults on sage-devel, trac, etc. by organizing a
I have abstained from the thread but read quite a bit of it and I think
that the idea there are really two issues is correct.
I have been thinking for a while but abstained because there is a lot of
stuff already on the thread and we are at a stage where the signal/noise
is quite low. So anyway
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Francois Bissey
francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
I have abstained from the thread but read quite a bit of it and I think
that the idea there are really two issues is correct.
I have been thinking for a while but abstained because there is a lot of
stuff
On 21/11/2014, at 18:54, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Francois Bissey
francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
I have abstained from the thread but read quite a bit of it and I think
that the idea there are really two issues is correct.
I have
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:06:53 PM UTC-5, William wrote:
Can somebody help me count the votes? I made pass through this long
and complicated thread, and here's what I seem to have got:
FOR a code of conduct, possibly suitably word-smithed (7):
Jan Groenewald
Travis Scrimshaw
Hmmm... Well really I would be surprised if anybody can dig through
sage-devel and find people insulting each other there.
Furthermore, I hate with all my heart that the same persons who come tell
me that they do not have sufficient time suddenly find all the time they
need to write Grant
Hello,
I have a working proof-of-concept to improve tracebacks for preparsed
code and for Cython code. On http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/71, you can
see an example of a new traceback.
This isn't a finished patch yet, but I would like some opinions on the
general approach first.
The main
Precisely.
Which kind of rule would you see in a code of conduct that would make
messages like those you cited (not all were pointing at you, by the way)
illegal ?
Additionally, I really do not believe that it qualifies as people
insulting each other.
Nathann
P.S.: for those who never read
I don't see any big problems with the overall approach at first
glance. And the result is great!
David
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
Hello,
I have a working proof-of-concept to improve tracebacks for preparsed code
and for Cython code. On
On Friday, 21 November 2014 17:50:19 UTC+11, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Which kind of rule would you see in a code of conduct that would make
messages like those you cited (not all were pointing at you, by the way)
illegal ?
Sorry Nathan, but since you asked, these comments clearly violate
Sorry Nathan, but since you asked, these comments clearly violate item (4)
of the proposed code of conduct, and arguably items (1) and (2) as well.
Well, then I believe that my only defense is that I was feeling very
alone trying to get item 3 observed. Indeed, a bug had been returning
wrong
43 matches
Mail list logo
