Nicolas,
Does it make sense to have a particular abstract object
in an abstract category in sage and be able to work with it and describe
its properties, all on the abstract level?
What I have in mind is the unit object in the tensor category of
modules.
I have this working concretely (tensors
Hey everyone,
I've been using #10963 in developing #14901 (Lie algebras). I first gave
'Lie' as an axiom of NonAssociativeNonUnitalAlgebras (which I just asked
Nicolas for how to do it without really looking at the examples), but
decided that I didn't want _mul_() to give the Lie bracket, so
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can demonstrate why it's better.
Do you think that a patch should automatically be merged when it has been
waiting for a reviewer for a
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can demonstrate why it's better.
Do you think that a patch
Hey John no worries, I was only answering Travis' post and this
(rethorical) question was just meant as a way to show that I did not concur
with his view that reviewers should have to implement their remarks when
the review gets long.
Nathann
On Tuesday, 11 March 2014, John H Palmieri
On 3/11/14 1:20 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because
they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can
Helloo !
I agree with John. I actually think Nicolas is quite patient trying to answer
all questions.
You are so kind.
My suggestion would be either for Volker to implement his alternative on a
different ticket, so we
can see it in action and test it, or to let Nicolas' patch go in
Dear Sage-Combinat devs in France and Québec,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 04:27:37PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
I submitted this morning the ANR grant pre-proposal ``Mutualized
software development for research in combinatorics and
beyond''. Thank you to all who contributed! We should
Hi!
Just heads up:
Aaron Lauve and Peter Tingley are planning to host Sage Days in Chicago during
the
summer of 2015 (not 2014!!). This will focus on representation theory, crystals,
and combinatorics.
Best,
Anne
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:42:04 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
If you want to get this ticket inside of Sage there is an easy way :
review it.
+1
also would save me a lot of time
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-combinat-devel group.
To
Hi Travis
On 2014-03-11, Travis Scrimshaw tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
I've been using #10963 in developing #14901 (Lie algebras). I first gave
'Lie' as an axiom of NonAssociativeNonUnitalAlgebras (which I just asked
Nicolas for how to do it without really looking at the examples),
Good to
So, no Sage Days in the US this summer ? What happened to the
Berkeley-Davis Sage days ?
See you
Viviane
2014-03-11 21:46 GMT+01:00 Anne Schilling a...@math.ucdavis.edu:
Hi!
Just heads up:
Aaron Lauve and Peter Tingley are planning to host Sage Days in Chicago
during the
summer of 2015
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can demonstrate why it's better.
Do you think that a patch
Paul,
Instead, I would advocate using a declarative domain specific language built
for semi-formalizing
mathematics
The appeal of this paradigm is evident. It addresses
a fundamentally important issue: how to structure the development process to
encourage the code to reflect the mathematics
You can have a look at http://trac.sagemath.org/wiki/Cygwin64Port.
My last try was with 5.13 on Cygwin64, but some of the issues can be 32/64
agnostic and 5.13 and 6.1 are not that different.
The only one on the page which might affect you at this pooint is either
rebasing or a problem with
In fact you would need http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15317 which is
merged but in a 6.2 beta.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:15:53 AM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
You can have a look at http://trac.sagemath.org/wiki/Cygwin64Port.
My last try was with 5.13 on Cygwin64, but some of the
Is it possible now to build sage on cygwin and obtain something that can be
distributed? In that case, maybe we should include that in the download
section.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:20:08 AM UTC+1, mmarco wrote:
Is it possible now to build sage on cygwin and obtain something that can
be distributed? In that case, maybe we should include that in the download
section.
I'd say mostly yes, just like on linux.
But some people said we should
On 2014-03-11, Jean-Pierre Flori jpfl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:20:08 AM UTC+1, mmarco wrote:
Is it possible now to build sage on cygwin and obtain something that can
be distributed? In that case, maybe we should include that in the download
section.
I'd say
That is what singular does, right?
El martes, 11 de marzo de 2014 11:23:57 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik escribió:
On 2014-03-11, Jean-Pierre Flori jpf...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:20:08 AM UTC+1, mmarco wrote:
Is it possible now to build sage on cygwin
I actually just have a minor complaint about the very last sentence. In
the last section you write
*Use overloading hacks to define a new infix operator like *dot*, as in a
well-known Python recipe:* (See:
Been using sage happily for months, but now when I try to open it (sage./
in terminal) I get the message 'No such file or directory'. This started
happening after I installed 'graphviz'- I have since removed this but makes
no difference. I have even tried rerunning the installer, but it seems
It points to 6.1.beta1:
http://www.sagemath.org/download-latest.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To
Hi Sam,
On 2014-03-11, Sam Moore sam25mo...@googlemail.com wrote:
Been using sage happily for months, but now when I try to open it (sage./
in terminal)
Do you perhaps intended to do ./sage and not sage./ ?
Best regards,
Simon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:45:56 PM UTC, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote:
I am happy to change those error messages for something more helpful;
What do you suggest?
- ``Unknown axiom name 'Endlich'. Please add it to
sage.categories.category_with_axiom.all_axioms''
- ``Axiom 'Endlich' not
Hey everyone,
I've been using #10963 in developing #14901 (Lie algebras). I first gave
'Lie' as an axiom of NonAssociativeNonUnitalAlgebras (which I just asked
Nicolas for how to do it without really looking at the examples), but
decided that I didn't want _mul_() to give the Lie bracket, so
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can demonstrate why it's better.
Do you think that a patch should automatically be merged when it has been
waiting for a reviewer for a
On 3/10/14 7:18 PM, Gehad Elrobey wrote:
hi , I am a software engineering student interested in gsoc 2d
interactive graphs project.
I Think that interactive 2d graphs is one interesting feature that must
be added to both sage-nb and sage cloud.
In the Projects ideas its mentioned that this
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can demonstrate why it's better.
Do you think that a patch
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:40:59 PM UTC, Simon King wrote:
Hi Sam,
On 2014-03-11, Sam Moore sam25...@googlemail.com javascript: wrote:
Been using sage happily for months, but now when I try to open it
(sage./
in terminal)
Do you perhaps intended to do ./sage and not sage./ ?
Hey John no worries, I was only answering Travis' post and this
(rethorical) question was just meant as a way to show that I did not concur
with his view that reviewers should have to implement their remarks when
the review gets long.
Nathann
On Tuesday, 11 March 2014, John H Palmieri
On 3/11/14 1:20 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because
they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can
Helloo !
I agree with John. I actually think Nicolas is quite patient trying to answer
all questions.
You are so kind.
My suggestion would be either for Volker to implement his alternative on a
different ticket, so we
can see it in action and test it, or to let Nicolas' patch go in
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:42:04 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
If you want to get this ticket inside of Sage there is an easy way :
review it.
+1
also would save me a lot of time
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 3/10/14 7:18 PM, Gehad Elrobey wrote:
hi , I am a software engineering student interested in gsoc 2d
interactive graphs project.
I Think that interactive 2d graphs is one interesting feature that must
be
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:36:01AM -0700, Niles Johnson wrote:
Oh -- maybe that's why I have a hard time understanding categories :)
:-)
That makes sense -- I see the need for something along these
lines. After scanning the ticket discussion and documentation, I
think the
Maxima, part of Sage, has had an extensible (at run time) parser for
perhaps 35 years.
You could ask about the experience there, maybe read about the pros and
cons.
Or you could be more conventional and ignore others' past experience. :)
What's PEP stand for? I assume that at least one of
I did not look at the logs yet, but you definitely need python 2.7.5.p2
which is not in the 6.1 series.
See http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15317
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:32:28 PM UTC+1, Evan Oman wrote:
Alright so I have attached the entire Python log so hopefully that will
contain what
On the other hand, a student could combine the two ideas, or work on the
interactive plots within the cloud, so as to prepare for a future move to a
personal version. (Hint to students who read this.)
Incidentally, the cloud interface looks really nice. It's kind of sad that
I looked at it
I am confused about what to do.
Everyone seems to be assuming that one of Volker's or Nicolas' approaches
must be right. It might very well be that both approaches are suboptimal
compared to a third. Still, Nicolas' has the merit to be implemented.
Let me explain:
I support Nicolas' initiative
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Robert Bradshaw rober...@gmail.com wrote:
First off, to start with a funny anecdote, I remember working with
some of the early Sage devs way back in the day optimizing matrix
multiplication and we were baffled by the fact that numpy somehow
managed to have
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Niles Johnson nil...@gmail.com wrote:
Second, I think your last sentence is too much of a stretch. It's fair to
say that Sage shipping an infix hack is (possibly) evidence that people
love infix operators. (Although the fact that it's not used much would
First off, to start with a funny anecdote, I remember working with
some of the early Sage devs way back in the day optimizing matrix
multiplication and we were baffled by the fact that numpy somehow
managed to have O(n^2) behavior into the thousand by thousand matrix
range :).
More serious
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can demonstrate why it's better.
Do you think that a patch
Paul,
Instead, I would advocate using a declarative domain specific language built
for semi-formalizing
mathematics
The appeal of this paradigm is evident. It addresses
a fundamentally important issue: how to structure the development process to
encourage the code to reflect the mathematics
Awesome, installing python 2.7.5.p2 got me past the readline error and it
continued building from there.
It ran for about 30 minutes(running a ton of sanity tests, a good sign?),
then froze here for an hour or two:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:26 PM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
Maxima, part of Sage, has had an extensible (at run time) parser for
perhaps 35 years.
You could ask about the experience there, maybe read about the pros and
cons.
Or you could be more conventional and ignore others' past
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:51:46AM +, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Thus, it would certainly be a reasonable PEP to provide a framework in
Python to define custom infix operators (say, operator.compose), by
Hmm, it is just sitting there on that line again, is it expecting input? It
seems to be passing all of the tests.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:08:07 PM UTC-5, Evan Oman wrote:
Awesome, installing python 2.7.5.p2 got me past the readline error and it
continued building from there.
It ran
49 matches
Mail list logo
