Hi Andrew!
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:50:31PM -0700, Andrew Mathas wrote:
I have just pushed a new version of my partition tuple patch #13072 to the
combinat queue which addresses the deprecation issues flagged by Nicolas
and others. As there are many functions involved I
Did you make a quick benchmark on Partitions().random_element(), with
and without caching? Given that number_of_partitions (which was
already fast) was even further optimized recently, maybe caching is
not relevant anymore?
From the remark in partition.py, I think that whoever cached
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 05:34:36AM -0700, Andrew Mathas wrote:
Did you make a quick benchmark on Partitions().random_element(), with
and without caching? Given that number_of_partitions (which was
already fast) was even further optimized recently, maybe caching is
not
Hi Franco,
Will this also happen on this person's computer with sage-5.3.rc0?
I think I am running this on the same computer, but I do not have sage-5.0.1
installed any longer.
sage: Sym = SymmetricFunctions(QQ)
sage: p = Sym.powersum()
sage: s = Sym.schur()
sage: f =
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Anne Schilling a...@math.ucdavis.edu wrote:
Hi Franco,
Will this also happen on this person's computer with sage-5.3.rc0?
I think I am running this on the same computer, but I do not have sage-5.0.1
installed any longer.
Don't know. He hasn't upgraded yet.
Hi Franco,
Someone sent me the following sage session, which I cannot reproduce,
but I'm asking whether this is a known issue and whether someone can
reproduce it:
sage: p=SFAPower(QQ)
sage: s=SFASchur(QQ)
sage: f = p([1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1])/990 + p([2,2,2,2,2,1])/10 +
Hello Florent!
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Florent Hivert florent.hiv...@lri.fr wrote:
Hi Franco,
Someone sent me the following sage session, which I cannot reproduce,
but I'm asking whether this is a known issue and whether someone can
reproduce it:
sage:
On 8/29/12 8:20 AM, Franco Saliola wrote:
Someone sent me the following sage session, which I cannot reproduce,
but I'm asking whether this is a known issue and whether someone can
reproduce it:
sage: p=SFAPower(QQ)
sage: s=SFASchur(QQ)
sage: f = p([1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1])/990 +
Hi,
This one looks really serious. In some ways seems to be computer
dependent because my answers seem to have twice as
many digits as yours.
sage: Sym = SymmetricFunctions(QQ)
sage: p = Sym.p()
sage: s = Sym.s()
sage: s(p[2,2])
s[1, 1, 1, 1] - s[2, 1, 1] + 2*s[2, 2] - s[3, 1] + s[4]
sage: g =
John Palmieri has made the follow remark on trac:
Regarding RestrictedPartitions: see
#12278http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12278.
Should it be deprecated at all? In particular, what's the replacement for
something like RestrictedPartitions(5,[3,2,1], 3)? The best I can come up
In principle, reading the documentation of Partitions the command
sage: RestrictedPartitions(5,[3,2,1], 3).list()
[[3, 1, 1], [2, 2, 1]]
should be achieved by
sage: Partitions(5, parts_in = [3,2,1], max_length=3)
Partitions of the integer 5 with parts in [1, 2, 3]
but unfortunately max_length
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:53:33 PM UTC-7, Anne Schilling wrote:
In principle, reading the documentation of Partitions the command
sage: RestrictedPartitions(5,[3,2,1], 3).list()
[[3, 1, 1], [2, 2, 1]]
should be achieved by
sage: Partitions(5, parts_in = [3,2,1], max_length=3)
On 8/29/12 5:11 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:53:33 PM UTC-7, Anne Schilling wrote:
In principle, reading the documentation of Partitions the command
sage: RestrictedPartitions(5,[3,2,1], 3).list()
[[3, 1, 1], [2, 2, 1]]
should be
On 8/29/12 12:16 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:01:13PM -0700, Mike Zabrocki wrote:
Hi,
This one looks really serious. In some ways seems to be computer
dependent because my answers seem to have twice as
many digits as yours.
This really looks like an
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:21:31 PM UTC-7, Anne Schilling wrote:
On 8/29/12 5:11 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:53:33 PM UTC-7, Anne Schilling wrote:
In principle, reading the documentation of Partitions the command
sage:
Then I think the functionality of RestrictedPartitions should be fully
implemented in Partitions
by allowing several keyword entries.
I had a look at the code and there doesn't seem to be an obvious quick fix
because the classes determined by parts_in and max_length and friends are
On 28 August 2012 20:55, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
See the exchange below. I'm curious if there is anybody reading this
who would want to manage a bunch of Virtualbox VM's, if we had a
server *devoted* solely to running them, all for making Sage build in
a much wider range
Hi,
On 29 August 2012 06:38, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 28 August 2012 20:55, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
See the exchange below. I'm curious if there is anybody reading this
who would want to manage a bunch of Virtualbox VM's, if we had a
server
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:05:56 +
Jan Groenewald j...@aims.ac.za wrote:
Hi,
On 29 August 2012 06:38, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 28 August 2012 20:55, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
See the exchange below. I'm curious if there is anybody reading
Hi
Also, the 2GB is a requirement for running graphics.
This is not even necessary for notebook testing.
You can install 1GB virtual machines and stop the
GUI on them.
Regards,
Jan
On 29 August 2012 09:46, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:05:56 +
Jan
On 2012-08-29 09:05, Jan Groenewald wrote:
Two Gigabytes is sufficient for each for RAM.
If you add swap space, perhaps yes. But 2GB is not sufficient neither
for building the documentation nor for running all doctests in Sage.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Dear All,
There is a nice phd position available at the university of Eindhoven. It
is aimed at someone interested in computer algebra, so I thought there
might be people here who are interested in it. The position includes a
decent salary.
In this position you will among others:
-Assist
On 29 August 2012 08:05, Jan Groenewald j...@aims.ac.za wrote:
The four (or six) volunteers are presumably adept at installing a machine,
adding
buildbot_slave and auto updates, and repsonding every few months to an
anomaly.
There could be a reasonable argument made for not updating them,
Since some years, I manage a Sage server in my University; this server
is used by students and I have implemented a simple ldap identification.
With Sage versions 5.2, I always did the following:
-install python ldap in sage
-download the notebook spkg.
-In this notebook package, there was a
On 29 August 2012 08:05, Jan Groenewald j...@aims.ac.za wrote:
I'm not sure I understand completely. My back-of-the-envelope calculation
came out
an order of magnitude differently.
Em, that's a big difference.
Two Gigabytes is sufficient for each for RAM.
I don't believe it is. I think
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:46:23 AM UTC+1, Burcin Erocal wrote:
It is possible to script the creation of virtual machines:
If you only need to do it once then it is my experience that its easier to
do it manually (even if that means going through a slow vnc)
So in theory, many more
Do you really need 2GB or RAM to build sage? I would say i have
compiled it in systems with less RAM than that.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
Hello,
I am a professional Unix sys admin. My current title is Senior Systems
Administrator at Magellan Health Services. I have been working in Unix and
Linux system administration for 23 years. I currently work with a small
team on the care and feeding of a few hundred AIX LPARs and RHEL
On 2012-08-29 16:15, mmarco wrote:
Do you really need 2GB or RAM to build sage? I would say i have
compiled it in systems with less RAM than that.
Building the Sage *documentation* requires about 2.5GB of memory. Note
that memory here doesn't have to mean RAM, it can also be swap space.
--
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Matthew Alton matthew.al...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I am a professional Unix sys admin. My current title is Senior Systems
Administrator at Magellan Health Services. I have been working in Unix and
Linux system administration for 23 years. I currently
SAGE is a huge help to me in my studies at Saint Louis Community College
where I am currently re-taking Calculus 2 after 25 years.
Awesome! I love hearing about the huge variety of people who use Sage for
education. Love the mini-vita, too, especially
Back in 2001 I was able to get
I would start each VM out with 1GB and increase as required.
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:15:20 AM UTC-5, mmarco wrote:
Do you really need 2GB or RAM to build sage? I would say i have
compiled it in systems with less RAM than that.
--
You received this message because you are
Excellent! I am very happy to be of help. I have an IBM xSeries AMD64
server at home. If you will tell me your choice of platform and
virtualization technology for this project I can begin working this
weekend. If we coordinate our efforts well, we should be able to transfer
my virtual
...any assistance you can give on porting to things like AIX etc. would
be wonderful.
AIX is a notoriously difficult target for OSS. There was an effort
underway with the AIX 5L release to make AIX more OSS-friendly. This was
cancelled though, after our sociopathic friends at SCO baselessly
For the record, I also used kvm to partition the worker machine in
sagepad.org and agree that it would be the better choice. Another advantage
is that it has an official and documented Python API...
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:50:09 PM UTC+1, William wrote:
I think KVM would make a lot
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:54:00 PM UTC-4, Matthew Alton wrote:
...any assistance you can give on porting to things like AIX etc. would
be wonderful.
AIX is a notoriously difficult target for OSS. There was an effort
underway with the AIX 5L release to make AIX more OSS-friendly.
This is very powerful hardware. It should do nicely.
Here is my detailed assessment.
Recoverability:
The PDF specifies a single 1TB HDD connected to a non-redundant internal
controller. The operation of the system is thus dependent upon the status
of a single disk drive. This is fine for a
On 2012-08-29 19:45, Matthew Alton wrote:
Drive mirroring can be done in hardware by the HDD controller or in
software by the OS LVM. Hardware is more reliable and performant
[citation needed]
For something as simple as a 2-drive RAID 1 setup, I see no reason for a
hardware RAID controller.
Quite true in terms of complexity. The performance difference would also
be negligible. I'm going for remotely fixable with this spec. The more
things you can consign to the hardware BIOS the better. The iDRAC6 card
may moot the point, though.
Will the iDRAC6 card provide console VGA
On 29 August 2012 17:53, Matthew Alton matthew.al...@gmail.com wrote:
...any assistance you can give on porting to things like AIX etc. would be
wonderful.
AIX is a notoriously difficult target for OSS. There was an effort underway
with the AIX 5L release to make AIX more OSS-friendly. This
On 2012-08-29 20:56, David Kirkby wrote:
A port to Sage to 32-bit Solaris has been completed. Sage has passed
all tests on both Solaris 10 SPARC and Solaris 10 x86.
Maybe in the past, yes. The current version of Sage has a few doctest
errors on Solaris SPARC. I have not tested Solaris 10 x86,
On 29 August 2012 20:04, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2012-08-29 20:56, David Kirkby wrote:
A port to Sage to 32-bit Solaris has been completed. Sage has passed
all tests on both Solaris 10 SPARC and Solaris 10 x86.
Maybe in the past, yes. The current version of Sage has a
On 29 August 2012 20:18, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 29 August 2012 20:04, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
Is Sage being tested on SPARC now? If there's a SPARC box, I'll have a
go at building it. I have one of my SPARC boxes on now, which I have
set up with a
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Matthew Alton matthew.al...@gmail.com wrote:
This is very powerful hardware. It should do nicely.
Here is my detailed assessment.
Recoverability:
The PDF specifies a single 1TB HDD connected to a non-redundant internal
controller.
Sorry -- that was just
On 2012-08-29 20:45, Matthew Alton wrote:
Quite true in terms of complexity. The performance difference would
also be negligible. I'm going for remotely fixable with this spec.
The more things you can consign to the hardware BIOS the better. The
iDRAC6 card may moot the point, though.
I
All very good news!
I must correct my mistake. I wrote RAID/0. This should be RAID/1. We're
after mirroring with no stripes or parity.
As to the disk space requirements, we'll have to do some calculations. In
the simplest case we have a single VM running a single instance of an
operating
On 2012-08-29 22:19, Matthew Alton wrote:
All very good news!
I must correct my mistake. I wrote RAID/0. This should be RAID/1.
We're after mirroring with no stripes or parity.
As to the disk space requirements, we'll have to do some calculations.
In the simplest case we have a single
My aplogoies for the confusion. We are suggesting presicely the same
thing. I wrote RAID/0 when I should have written RAID/1 -- simple
mirroring. I'm spoiled by the SAN.
We can certainly set up the mirror in LVM. The remote business is to do
with the vagaries of fixing broken things with
I completely agree. Distributed filesystems for /home is my standard
practice as well. Mr. Demeyer knows his stuff.
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:25:43 PM UTC-5, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-08-29 22:19, Matthew Alton wrote:
All very good news!
I must correct my mistake. I wrote
On 2012-08-29 22:19, Matthew Alton wrote:
So let's go to the board. (12GB * N) + (xGB * N) for N instances of
size x, or N(12 + x)GB. If the source trees and build areas are on
distributed filesystems such as NFS, we are closer to: (N * 12GB) +
xGB. Also, we can get away without backing up
I have 5 SPARC machines at the house. I don't know if any of them will run
the current version of Solaris. They're pretty geriatric.
I have access to an AIX machine with a C compiler. We're good there. It
was the HP-UX that I don't have at the moment. The only other major target
these
12GB is a bit large, especially if we're not loading the X stuff.
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:42:49 PM UTC-5, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-08-29 22:19, Matthew Alton wrote:
So let's go to the board. (12GB * N) + (xGB * N) for N instances of
size x, or N(12 + x)GB. If the source
Dear friends and colleagues,
I am terribly saddened to report that yesterday, August 28 2012 at
10am, John D. Hunter died from complications arising from cancer
treatment at the University of Chicago hospital, after a brief but
intense battle with this terrible illness. John is survived by his
53 matches
Mail list logo
