Is there an easy way to get rid of the following TestSuite failures?
Or does it require an overhaul of how sage handles morphisms?
I understand why the first two tests fail.
--Mark
sage: F=CombinatorialFreeModule(ZZ,[1])
sage: def on_basis(x):
... return x
I am completely inexperienced with this, but:
- I have heard people around me say that with this type of grant support
for preparation of a grant, professional grant writers should be hired.
They help write the not-so-scientific portion of the grant.
- I have heard first hand from a Principal
Hi all,
I would be very happy to cover the front of dissemination of
knowledge/teaching/MOOCs. Of course, this is secondary in a call on
research infrastructure, but it is still important to teach other
researchers how to use the tools we build, or to assist them in teaching
their students, etc.
I
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH.
So let me get this right : the plan to ask the CNRS some money in order to
help you ask the Europe even MORE money, and it is assumed that a
percentage of the bigger grant will go to a guy whose full-time job is to
ask for money ?
If there is something wrong
Hi,
Going through the web I just discovered a new software called Bertini
[1]. One of its capability is to get arbitrary precision numerical
solutions of a set of polynomial equations. I do not think that Sage
is already able to do that, right ? Does any developer of Bertini on
that list ? Does
Dear colleagues,
At the occasion of a presentation of the European H2020 call for
grants, I started discussing opportunities for Sage with Eugénia
Shadlova (in charge of European projects at Université Paris-Sud) and
Jean-Pierre Caminade (research infrastructure mission in the french
Hi all,
over at [m4ri-devel]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/m4ri-devel/dJ4fCyiZRY8
we are discussing - well, currently stating our positions - on whether M4RI
should be re-licensed to LGPL from GPL. This is because Mate Soos asked us to
consider this because it would allow him to
Dear Sage introspecters,
I am on my way to improve import_statements (trac #15351) but I have a
problem with sage introspection. I am able to list all submodules of
the Sage library with the pkgutil library but then I somehow need to
read some of their source code (in order to avoid loading
operating system: Manjaro Linux 0.8.9
version number : sage-mathematics-6.1.1-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz precompiled
package
reproducible example:
N = 35
E = EllipticCurve(Integers(N),[5,1])
P = E(0,1)
LCM([2..6])*P
Traceback (click to the left of this block for traceback)
...
As far as Sage is concerned, anything that is GPLv3 compatible is fine
(this includes LGPL).
I don't understand the thought process that leads to somebody trying to
blackmail a library into changing their license to be more liberal with the
implicit threat that, otherwise, some piece of code
Hi --
[ disclaimer: I am not quite sure that I did everything right, git still
doesn't feel like home. ]
I pulled the Sage master and development branches. Then I checked out
master and compiled 6.1.1 without problems. Then I checked out devel,
compiled, and got the error below. Then I
Could you be more precise on which command did you use? It might be
that you rebuild sage source code (sage -b) instead of rebuild
everything (make).
2014-03-16 19:32 UTC+01:00, Christian Stump christian.st...@gmail.com:
Hi --
[ disclaimer: I am not quite sure that I did everything right, git
Could you be more precise on which command did you use? It might be
that you rebuild sage source code (sage -b) instead of rebuild
everything (make).
That is right, I did use sage -b. Should I have used make instead? (At
some point I also tried make start, but I am not sure anymore if this
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:23:29 AM UTC-7, Sz Tengely wrote:
I checked the code and I think it is easy to correct, in fact the solution
is
used a few lines below when x1-x2 has no inverse in Z/NZ:
line 694:
if
On Sunday 16 Mar 2014 11:23:36 Volker Braun wrote:
As far as Sage is concerned, anything that is GPLv3 compatible is fine
(this includes LGPL).
I don't understand the thought process that leads to somebody trying to
blackmail a library into changing their license to be more liberal with the
Is there an easy way to get rid of the following TestSuite failures?
Or does it require an overhaul of how sage handles morphisms?
I understand why the first two tests fail.
--Mark
sage: F=CombinatorialFreeModule(ZZ,[1])
sage: def on_basis(x):
... return x
I think the easiest way to deal with rebasing right now is to run:
* cd $SAGE_ROOT find . -name *.dll dlls rebase -O -T dlls
--
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
Okay, I imported the code base from
https://github.com/poeschko/sage
here:
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15955
I really couldn't be bothered to import patch by patch as the original author
made an interesting - let's ignore Sage's version control - choice. So all his
commits are in
I think that check for finite R was a quick hack I put in so that one
could implement a trivially simple ecm in Sage, at the specific
request of Ken Ribet, after it stopped working when Sage was being too
clever.
John
On 16 March 2014 12:25, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Saturday, March
I am completely inexperienced with this, but:
- I have heard people around me say that with this type of grant support
for preparation of a grant, professional grant writers should be hired.
They help write the not-so-scientific portion of the grant.
- I have heard first hand from a Principal
Hi all,
I would be very happy to cover the front of dissemination of
knowledge/teaching/MOOCs. Of course, this is secondary in a call on
research infrastructure, but it is still important to teach other
researchers how to use the tools we build, or to assist them in teaching
their students, etc.
I
2014-03-16 19:57 UTC+01:00, Christian Stump christian.st...@gmail.com:
Could you be more precise on which command did you use? It might be
that you rebuild sage source code (sage -b) instead of rebuild
everything (make).
That is right, I did use sage -b. Should I have used make instead?
The thing is that between two versions some of the spkg might have
changed. So each time you change version you should do use make. If
no spkg has changed, it will be equivalent to sage -b.
Thanks, it worked now! But I just got the below error building the doc. Is
that related, or another
No idea... You can try to rebuild doc from scratch with make
doc-clean and then make doc-html. Anyway, even not doing that you
should have a working Sage version (without docs)
2014-03-16 22:48 UTC+01:00, Christian Stump christian.st...@gmail.com:
The thing is that between two versions some of
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH.
So let me get this right : the plan to ask the CNRS some money in order to
help you ask the Europe even MORE money, and it is assumed that a
percentage of the bigger grant will go to a guy whose full-time job is to
ask for money ?
If there is something wrong
No idea... You can try to rebuild doc from scratch with make
doc-clean and then make doc-html. Anyway, even not doing that you
should have a working Sage version (without docs)
Thanks again, Sage works now! And I will be the docs working hopefully
also...
Christian
--
You received this
That's more or less it. Almost everyone knows this, but for information a
nontrivial percentage of the grant is anyways meant to handle
administration costs. All the information I was bringing in is that some
percentage of that percentage can be used to pay for the grant writer
retroactively (but
Sage has already an interface to PHCpack for homotopy continuation. However
that one is written in Ada and doesn't support arbitrary precision floats,
so something that is easier to distribute and more general would be good.
Its nice that the authors of Bertini finally released the source. I
lol... IIRC, William has gotten a few libraries to change their
licenses. It is a genuine request, and there is no blackmail here.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as Sage is concerned, anything that is GPLv3 compatible is fine (this
includes
29 matches
Mail list logo
