Hello,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 09:35:56AM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Jean: could you please have a quick look at the patch, and see if the
names sound natural?
I do not know what is expected, but I did not notice anything strange with
the names.
I have one remark: invariants are
Could you provide an example?
already for small permutation groups it takes quite some time:
sage: %time len([ x for x in SymmetricGroup(3) ])
CPU times: user 0.01 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.02 s
Wall time: 0.47 s
6
sage: %time len([ x for x in SymmetricGroup(4) ])
CPU times: user 0.04 s, sys:
Hi Nicolas,
I just went through the patch.
Thanks!
- Should the category be called FiniteReflectionGroups or
FiniteComplexReflectionGroups?
To me, FiniteComplexReflectionGroups sounds like it is not to be used
for finite real (or rational) reflection groups, that's why I chose
this name.
Universal Cyclotomic Field. That's Sage's implementation by Christian
of GAP's E(n,k) and arithmetic using the Zumbroich Basis.
Well, do your computations in GAP then...
(i.e. just do gap(blah; blah;) and then get the result back)
the calling of gap is exactly what makes everything slow...
Dear Jean,
Thanks for your comments!
I have one remark: invariants are marked 'not implemented because not
implemented in Chevie'. Actually in Chevie they are implemented for all
groups whose irreducible components are not of type H3, H4, E6 or G32. If
anybody has the invariants
Dear Christian,
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 07:58:16AM -0400, Christian Stump wrote:
.representing_reflections (I need a better name!)
Why not .distinguished_reflections ? This is the official name
for reflections whose eigenvalue is of the form exp(2ipi/n)
(instead of exp(2ipi k/n) with k1).
Hi there,
Currently the methods core and quotient returns respectively a list and a list
of list. Does anyone object on having them return a partition and a tuple of
partition ?
sage: Partition([7,7,5,3,3,3,1]).core(3)
[1, 1]
sage: type(Partition([7,7,5,3,3,3,1]).core(3))
type 'list'
On 4/9/11 11:11 AM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi there,
Currently the methods core and quotient returns respectively a list and a list
of list. Does anyone object on having them return a partition and a tuple of
partition ?
sage: Partition([7,7,5,3,3,3,1]).core(3)
[1, 1]
sage:
On 04/09/2011 06:15 PM, Anne Schilling wrote:
Sounds good to me.
Me too.
-Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-combinat-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group,
That's on the current status of Boehm GC support on Apple's llvm-gcc
-- Forwarded message --
From: Asst. Prof. Dmitrii (Dima) Pasechnik d...@ntu.edu.sg
Date: 9 April 2011 12:21
Subject: Fwd: unable to compile GC using Apple's llvm-gcc (from XCode 4)
To: g...@linux.hpl.hp.com
Cc:
As myself and others with gcc 4.6.0 have found, singular fails to build.
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/singular-3-1-1-4.p5.spkg
might fix this, but it needs testing. So far I've only verified it builds on
OpenSolaris. I'm in the process of building Sage from scratch, and
On 04/ 9/11 11:05 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
As myself and others with gcc 4.6.0 have found, singular fails to build.
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/singular-3-1-1-4.p5.spkg
might fix this, but it needs testing. So far I've only verified it
builds on OpenSolaris. I'm in
On 04/ 9/11 11:05 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
As myself and others with gcc 4.6.0 have found, singular fails to build.
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/singular-3-1-1-4.p5.spkg
might fix this, but it needs testing. So far I've only verified it
builds on OpenSolaris. I'm in
Hi all,
interesting thread, let me toss in my 2 cents.
There are also Linux distributions which do not have gcc installed by
default, so users might fall into the Cython is not usable trap,
too. Python, from v2.7 on, has some new module called sysconfig (see
On Saturday, April 9, 2011 8:11:26 AM UTC-7, Georg S. Weber wrote:
Hi all,
interesting thread, let me toss in my 2 cents.
There are also Linux distributions which do not have gcc installed by
default, so users might fall into the Cython is not usable trap,
too.
I just created
On 04/ 9/11 11:05 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I've found after installing the following 3 files
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/singular-3-1-1-4.p5.sp
kg http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/dreyer/spkg/polybori-0.7.0.p2.spkg
Thanks to Nicolas there is a lot of progress there. Initial test by my friend
Steve has shown that test failures is way down and the problems with
assertEqual seems to be mostly solved.
Next we have a number of warning messages that have changed and the number
of significant figures displayed
Dear Sage Devs,
Thanks to an influx of grant money, I'm organizing a huge Sage Days
on the Sage Notebook June 13-17, 2011 in Seattle. That's in just over
two months from now. If you would like to come, send me an email.
Also, if you just want to come and fix lots of bugs in Sage, and
perhaps
It turns out that warnings are not visible to the end users anymore.
This is according to the python documentation:
http://docs.python.org/library/warnings.html
Section 27.6.5 to be precise.
Actually more explicit in http://docs.python.org/using/cmdline.html :
Starting from Python 2.7,
Hi,
I'm trying to create a function which outputs the number of digits you'd have to
write down to write every integer from 1 up to the input value.
Having defined x and z as variables I used this at one point...
z(x)=((int(log(x,10)))+1)*(1+x-((10^int(log(x,10)
It gets rejected as does
The easiest way to get the number of digits of a positive integer n is
len(str(n)) or even n.ndigits() !
So
sage: N=10^6
sage: sum([n.ndigits() for n in srange(1,N+1)])
596
solves your problem for all integers up to a million. This is
obviously not the fastest way though!
John
On Apr 9,
21 matches
Mail list logo
