On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 at 01:22AM -0800, Craig Citro wrote:
> Second: I wonder if the constructors for some of the combinatorics
> functions couldn't be given a common interface. For instance:
>
> sage: SetPartitions
> SetPartitions SetPartitionsIk SetPartitionsRk
> SetPartitionsAk SetPartiti
PS:
> There is a slightly simpler definition of R:
> sage: R. = QQ[]
... simpler in the sense that it defines x1,...,x5 on the fly, so that
you do not need to do (x1,x2,x3,x4,x5) = R.gens()
Yours,
Simon
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to
Dear Thomas,
On Dec 2, 10:11 pm, Thomas Kahle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> std(quotient(I,x3))
> std(I)
>
> *** Here I compare the output manually since I dont know hot to compare
> ideals in singular
As much as I know, by default Singular's std computes the *reduced*
Gröbner basis. So, at
Hi,
If anybody here is VERY interested in helping to organize
Sage Days: Algebraic Geometry, March 9-12, 2009
at MSRI in Berkeley in 2009, please email me off list.
Thanks!
William
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--~--~---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I think I found a bug, or use singular in sage in the wrong way:
sage: R = QQ['x1,x2,x3,x4,x5']
sage: (x1,x2,x3,x4,x5) = R.gens()
sage: I = (x1*x4^2 - x2*x5^2, x1^3*x3^3 - x4^2*x2^4, x2*x4^8 -
x3^3*x5^6)* R
sage: I.quotient(x3*R) == I
True
On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2008, at 2:56 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 11:52 am, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
>
> > Hi,
Hi Tim,
> >> currently on OS X (at least 10.5.5) Sage's mercurial will crash when
> >> it executes EDITOR and
On Dec 2, 2008, at 2:56 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 2, 11:52 am, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
>> currently on OS X (at least 10.5.5) Sage's mercurial will crash when
>> it executes EDITOR and it picks up libpng for some reason.
>
> This is when EDITOR is set to somethin
On Dec 2, 11:52 am, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> currently on OS X (at least 10.5.5) Sage's mercurial will crash when
> it executes EDITOR and it picks up libpng for some reason.
This is when EDITOR is set to something that is for example Fink or
MacPorts based. To this
Hi,
currently on OS X (at least 10.5.5) Sage's mercurial will crash when
it executes EDITOR and it picks up libpng for some reason. This is
inconvenient because hg_sage.commit() won't work from within Sage. In
discussions with Michael Abshoff the possible solution to this is to
patch hg t
On Dec 2, 1:47 am, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, related to that specific documentation,
> is there a function that when doing polynomial
> division of (a,b) reports both the quotient
> and remainder in the sense that,
>
> a = quotient * b + remainder
quotient, remainder = a.quo_re
On Dec 1, 1:48 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Another response in this thread from David Kohel (who maybe should be
> posting on list)]
> Actually, I correct myself -- the average should be over the values
> of the function, weighted by the probabilities. The domain of the
>
On Dec 2, 2008, at 05:38 , mhampton wrote:
>
> What does happen when "not much happens"? It worked for me in what I
> think are very similar circumstances.
The process sits, no output, no CPU activity, no network activity.
This happened on two systems.
Justin
> On Dec 1, 6:56 pm, "Justin C.
On Dec 2, 3:52 am, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi malb,
> > this is basically caused by #4593. We can also make that doctest
> > optional for now since the failure is also due to M2 doing the
> > computation instead of the toy Buchberger. I know malb is busy at a
> > conference,
What does happen when "not much happens"? It worked for me in what I
think are very similar circumstances.
-M. Hampton
On Dec 1, 6:56 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 05:02 , mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hello folks,
>
> > it took a couple hours longer tha
> I'm a student in my final year of civil engineering and doing a thesis
> concerning Sage and cryptography. As a part of my thesis I would like
> to extend Sage and it's capabilities concerning boolean functions.
> Right now I'm looking into making some representations available
> (truth table, A
> I plan to upgrade png in 3.2.2 and will also attempt to do the upgrade
> to fplll 3.0.x. I guess if malb is ok with the rename we could also
> change the name next time he releases an updated version.
I named it libm4ri because this naming scheme is consistent with what Debian
does (usually th
> this is basically caused by #4593. We can also make that doctest
> optional for now since the failure is also due to M2 doing the
> computation instead of the toy Buchberger. I know malb is busy at a
> conference, so I will likely go that route and hopefully have #4593
> sorted out in 3.2.2. Fix
All tests passes on amd64 hardy heron.
(Sorry for the delay - it's a work amchine and kind of slow:-)
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:02 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> it took a couple hours longer than planned, but here goes 3.2.1.rc1.
> The changes merged went a little de
On Dec 2, 1:47 am, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Tim,
> I've found several spelling mistakes in the
> documentation for the Univariate Polynomial
> Base Class,
>
> http://www.sagemath.org/doc/ref/module-sage.rings.polynomial.polynomi...
>
> but given the movement to switch to S
+1 on craig, especially the 3th point.
ow I forgot to mention before, I also think that a massive
reorganization would be a bad thing to do since this would be big load
of work, and there are much better things that could get done in that
time. But motivating people to have the newly added stuff
Hi,
I've found several spelling mistakes in the
documentation for the Univariate Polynomial
Base Class,
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/ref/module-sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial-element.html
but given the movement to switch to Sphinx, I
was wondering if I should hold off on the
reporting until th
> That said, I'm not for some massive reorganization of
> the current global namespace, since that wold break a huge amount of
> existing code -- both in Sage and out (e.g., the examples at
> wiki.sagemath.org/interact).
>
I definitely agree that reorganizing and/or massively reducing the
global
22 matches
Mail list logo
