On 10/11/07, John Voight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/was/s/devel/sage-main/.hg$ rm hgrc
rm: remove write-protected regular file `hgrc'? y
rm: cannot remove `hgrc': Permission denied
Wait, you can't clone my repository from my home directory, since that
would
Hello all,
I've been thinking a bit about third-party packages for SAGE primarily
because I have some software that I'd like to release, but it is too
specialized for inclusion into the main branch. I think that when
SAGE gets more popular, this will become more of an issues. Some of
the
2007/10/12, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
sage: P.x,y,z=ZZ[]
sage: f=x*y^2*z^3+y^2*z
sage: f.coefficient(y,2,z,3) # I want the coefficient of y^2*z^3
# Bang
That doesn't seem very nice to me.
Good point: Dictionary it is then. (Incidentally, there downs seem a
non-obvious way to do
On Oct 12, 7:38 pm, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there something wrong with the trac server?
Hello Jason,
I get the following
message when going
tohttp://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/orhttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/:
Bad Gateway
The proxy server received an invalid response
Is there something wrong with the trac server? I get the following
message when going to http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ or
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ :
Bad Gateway
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
I'm not sure if it's a problem on my end or
Thanks William,
John:
I just tested it and it works fine with execfile.
Cheers,
Yi
--
http://www.yiqiang.org
On 10/12/07, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/12/07, John Voight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Yi,
It's definitely a start. I absolutely need Cython
William,
I am building Sage from source under andLinux right now. Everything
looks good so far. I will report when it completes. It is also
possible that an existing linux binary could work, perhaps provided
some prerequisite libraries are added.
I really like andLinux so far and I would very
Another *possible* way of sage behaving is
sage: P.x,y=ZZ[]
sage: f=x*y^2+x*y+y+x+1
sage: f.coefficient(y^2)
0
sage: f.coefficient(y^1)
1
sage: f.coefficient(y^0)
1
Now, I'm not sure if this is better or not, but I thought maybe I should
point it out. The biggest problem with this is that if you
On 10/12/07, Hamptonio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I indicated before, I will be going and would love to help out. I
will also chip in $100 for the booth; I can send you a check but I
need some sort of receipt.
Instead could you do the following:
(1) Go to
Hi,
Does anybody want to try to make sage run on Windows via this:
http://www.andlinux.org/
Bill Page just pointed out that they're using it for FriCAS (=Axiom fork).
It's definitely not a panacea, but it might be a good idea to support it for
some users.
-- William
--
William Stein
On 10/12/07, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the continued barrage of silly questions. It's my day to go through
sage gotcha's I'd accumulated.
Excellent!!
Why doesn't this next substitution result in 5/y?
sage: P.x,y=ZZ[]
sage: (x/y).subs({x:5}) # this should be 5/y
On Oct 12, 8:47 am, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the continued barrage of silly questions. It's my day to go through
sage gotcha's I'd accumulated.
Why doesn't this next substitution result in 5/y?
sage: P.x,y=ZZ[]
sage: (x/y).subs({x:5}) # this should be 5/y
x/y
On Friday 12 October 2007 11:41, didier deshommes wrote:
But:
coeff(f,y,0);
x + 1
returns the right answer
Actually I like Maple's notation better here over the dictionary
notation you proposed: it is as intuitive and I have to type less
On Oct 12, 7:36 am, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This e-mail is too long. Here's the bottom line: I suggest that the
coefficient method on a multivariate polynomial ring take a dictionary
indicating the variables and degrees that you want to restrict your attention
to.
Sounds
On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
sage: is_FractionField(QQ)
False
Any field is a fraction field (of itself), and any non-field is *not*
a fraction field, so mathematically is_FractionField is kind of
stupid. I suppose it really means is_implemented_as_a_fraction_field.
On Friday 12 October 2007 13:36, Mike Hansen wrote:
If you're doing a dictionary anyway, doesn't it make more sense to use
**kwargs? For example,
sage: P.x,y=ZZ[]
sage: f=x*y^2+x*y+y+x+1
sage: f.coefficient(y=2)
x
sage: f.coefficient(y=1)
x + 1
sage: f.coefficient(x=1, y=2)
1
It
On 10/12/07, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find the two following results contradictory:
sage: FractionField(ZZ) is QQ
True
sage: is_FractionField(QQ)
False
Is that a bug?
No. all of the many dozens of is_* methods do *type* checking.
They are not checking some abstract
Hi,
I have rented a Sage exhibit booth for the AMS 2008 joint meetings in
San Diego.
QUESTION: Who is going to be at that meeting? Who is interested
in helping out?
How many Sage dev's are going to be at that huge AMS meeting?
Might there be enough to organize an intense coding sprints...
William Stein wrote:
On 10/12/07, Craig Citro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll be there for a few days, and I'm glad to help out at the booth.
I'm also highly interested in some coding sprints. ;)
Excellent.
I think it would be an interesting experiment to have the coding
sprints at the
I've been meaning to get around to pointing these out:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/468
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/486
The first contains a patch to fix the problem where quad_double screws
up the fpu precision on x86 machines, and the second contains a patch to
If you're doing a dictionary anyway, doesn't it make more sense to use
**kwargs? For example,
sage: P.x,y=ZZ[]
sage: f=x*y^2+x*y+y+x+1
sage: f.coefficient(y=2)
x
sage: f.coefficient(y=1)
x + 1
sage: f.coefficient(x=1, y=2)
1
It takes a little bit to get used to the semantics of it, but the
On 10/12/07, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I realize that. It just seemed to me that if I wanted to utilize simple
type-checking, I would use isinstance (since I'm a python programmer). In
fact, the is_* functions are confusing to me for this very reason -- i.e.
they must do
On Oct 12, 4:59 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm going to try to put sage-2.8.7 together this evening, starting
at about 5pm my time. If anybody is interested in helping out,
I'll be on IRC #sage-devel (and in the Sage lab if you're local).
Count me in, assuming I am
Hi,
I'm going to try to put sage-2.8.7 together this evening, starting
at about 5pm my time. If anybody is interested in helping out,
I'll be on IRC #sage-devel (and in the Sage lab if you're local).
William
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
This e-mail is too long. Here's the bottom line: I suggest that the
coefficient method on a multivariate polynomial ring take a dictionary
indicating the variables and degrees that you want to restrict your attention
to.
It seems that the multivariate polynomial coefficient function is a
Thanks for thinking about this.
Other than licensing issues, which may or may not be relevant to your
question, one possibility to help with upgrades
is to create a new subdirectory (say examples/third-party,
or something) which is not touched by the upgrade process,
and then just reload
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
On Friday 12 October 2007 13:36, Mike Hansen wrote:
If you're doing a dictionary anyway, doesn't it make more sense to use
**kwargs? For example,
sage: P.x,y=ZZ[]
sage: f=x*y^2+x*y+y+x+1
sage: f.coefficient(y=2)
x
sage: f.coefficient(y=1)
On 10/12/07, Bill Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William,
I am building Sage from source under andLinux right now. Everything
looks good so far. I will report when it completes. It is also
possible that an existing linux binary could work, perhaps provided
some prerequisite libraries are
On 10/12/07, Mike Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been thinking a bit about third-party packages for SAGE primarily
because I have some software that I'd like to release, but it is too
specialized for inclusion into the main branch. I think that when
SAGE gets more popular, this will
Both the poly.coefficients({x:1,y:2}) and poly.coefficients(x=1,y=2)
seem confusing to me (the latter one downright scary. Exponents and
variable names have no business being on opposite sides of an equality
sign). In mathematical terms, what you want to do is view the
polynomial ring k[x,y,z] as
I find the two following results contradictory:
sage: FractionField(ZZ) is QQ
True
sage: is_FractionField(QQ)
False
Is that a bug?
--
Joel
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group,
2007/10/12, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This e-mail is too long. Here's the bottom line: I suggest that the
coefficient method on a multivariate polynomial ring take a dictionary
indicating the variables and degrees that you want to restrict your attention
to.
It seems that the
William Stein wrote:
Hi,
I have rented a Sage exhibit booth for the AMS 2008 joint meetings in
San Diego.
QUESTION: Who is going to be at that meeting? Who is interested
in helping out?
I'll be at the AMS meetings. I'm interested in helping out, depending
on how the schedule
On Friday 12 October 2007 11:25, William Stein wrote:
sage: FractionField(ZZ) is QQ
True
sage: is_FractionField(QQ)
False
No. all of the many dozens of is_* methods do *type* checking.
They are not checking some abstract mathematical properties.
There is a specific data type in Sage
On 10/12/07, Craig Citro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll be there for a few days, and I'm glad to help out at the booth.
I'm also highly interested in some coding sprints. ;)
Excellent.
I think it would be an interesting experiment to have the coding
sprints at the exhibition booth -- we
On 10/12/07, John Voight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Yi,
It's definitely a start. I absolutely need Cython compatibility--the
whole reason I'm using SAGE is the ease at which I can write optimized
code.
Very interesting :-)
Should we make this a trac ticket? Why can't the dsage
I'll be there for a few days, and I'm glad to help out at the booth.
I'm also highly interested in some coding sprints. ;)
I think it would be an interesting experiment to have the coding
sprints at the exhibition booth -- we could try to get random passers-
by involved in what we were
On Oct 12, 12:27 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
Hmm, possibly. kwargs feels scary to me with variables since the 'x' in the
kwargs parameter list is a totally different 'x' than the one in P.gen(0).
They just happened to be named the same in some
On Friday 12 October 2007 15:52, Nils Bruin wrote:
Both the poly.coefficients({x:1,y:2}) and poly.coefficients(x=1,y=2)
seem confusing to me (the latter one downright scary. Exponents and
variable names have no business being on opposite sides of an equality
sign).
Yes, I agree,
On Oct 12, 1:25 pm, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Suppose I had a poly ring with 19 variables and one of them was named y.
How would I get the coefficient for y^0 in your syntax? (That is, the
constant term in k[y][...].) This is the sticking point in what is currently
On 10/12/07, William Stein wrote:
On 10/12/07, Bill Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William,
I am building Sage from source under andLinux right now. Everything
looks good so far. I will report when it completes. It is also
possible that an existing linux binary could work, perhaps
None is a valid assignment to any python object, including one
declared to be a Cython type. One can declare
def __init__(self, ntl_ZZ_pX f not None):
...
if one wants a type error on None. See the section Extension types
and None at
On 10/12/07, Bill Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent! So you and me could work together on Sage-via-andLinux.
Sounds good to me.
The build of Sage on andLinux worked fine. Everything seems to work as
advertised. It took quite a long time (about 10 minutes!) for the
43 matches
Mail list logo
