On 2014-10-28, Anne Schilling a...@math.ucdavis.edu wrote:
Dear All!
Dan Bump, Ben Salisbury, Mark Shimozono and I are planning to apply
for an NSF grant for Sage (to fund Sage Days and other Sage related
activities). We will mostly focus on topics in combinatorics/algebra/
representation
Hi Anne,
I agree with Dima in that it would be great to have some of the basic ring
theory available in improved. There are some basic deficiencies with
(Laurent) polynomial rings, especially in more than one variable and it
would great if all of the problems with quite basic rings could be
Hello,
all SPKG.txt files list SPKG Maintainers. I never quite understood the
reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when
creating the SPKG and indeed many maintainers have long left Sage.
Since these sections doesn't seem to have a purpose, can we just remove
those?
Agree, if you want to know who wrote what then git blame is much more
useful than SPKG Maintainers.
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:24:14 AM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
Hello,
all SPKG.txt files list SPKG Maintainers. I never quite understood the
reason for this. Mostly, this seems to
+1
On 29/10/2014, at 21:24, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
Hello,
all SPKG.txt files list SPKG Maintainers. I never quite understood the
reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when creating the
SPKG and indeed many maintainers have long left Sage.
This is still blocking the next beta release..
http://trac.sagemath.org/query?keywords=~yosemiteorder=priority
On Friday, October 24, 2014 2:39:45 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote:
I have a working Sage on OSX 10.10. I suggest to release that shortly, in
case anybody else made the mistake of
On 2014-10-29 09:32, Francois Bissey wrote:
+1
On 29/10/2014, at 21:24, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
Hello,
all SPKG.txt files list SPKG Maintainers. I never quite understood the
reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when creating
the SPKG and indeed
I agree let's get rid of this.
I've updated a bunch of packages but did not feel like filling this field
with my name as I couldn't promise I'll keep on maintaining the packages.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from
I herebey nominate this flame for the Quote of the Year Award.
More seriously : rjf is probably right in stating that a mathematical error
is more likely to be detected by mathematicians rather than
results-oriented people : in most *practical* cases, an approximation
will not be practically
On 2014-10-24 18:09, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
I suggest Sage to pay QA staff for actively hunting bugs.
With which money?
--
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
Dear all,
I hope you may be interested in the following information:
The Software Sustainability Institute ( http://www.software.ac.uk/ ), of
which I am a Fellow, had recently initiated the petition to show that
software is fundamental to research: research software should be treated as
By coincidence I recceived your email a few minutes after reading
this:
https://www.researchprofessional.com/0/rr/news/uk/views-of-the-uk/2014/10/Speak-up-for-software.html
which people may also find interesting.
John
On 29 October 2014 10:31, Alexander Konovalov
alexander.konova...@gmail.com
Hi,
Under OS X 10.10 Yosemite, with then without homebrew's gcc 4.9.1,
I tried and failed to build Sage.
1. With homebrew's gcc 4.9.1 installed.
Starting from Sage 6.4.beta6 I merged
#17176 u/vbraun/gdb_on_yosemite
#17169 u/vbraun/upgrade_to_gcc_4_9_1
#17204
Sorry, the last 6 lines in my last post are there twice,
please ignore the repetition.
--
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
On 10/28/14, 15:53, Robert Dodier wrote:
On 2014-10-25, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
http://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1249.pdf
P.S. It would be interesting to see if Sage can do the calculation they
identified as buggy in mathematica. That would make for a cool
Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here?
I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the
fastest: 0.02s on my Mac, vs about 1s for (proven) modular/p-adic.
sage 6.3 returns the answer in 0.12s on my computer, while Maxima takes 15s.
--
You received this
Maybe the next beta should not be blocked by this? It's only final
releases that have blockers, I guess... unless you mean it's because it
doesn't work on your laptop, but I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that
sage.math is still the official release machine.
See also
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:45:15 PM UTC, kcrisman wrote:
See also http://wiki.sagemath.org/SupportedPlatforms which I minimally
updated with respect to this just now, but which probably needs some more
significant updating as I think we may not have all the Roman-named
machines
Gcc picks up parts of your homebrew install, you must at least rename
/usr/local before you can build anything with homebrew installed there.
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:57:19 AM UTC, Samuel Lelievre wrote:
Under OS X 10.10 Yosemite, with then without homebrew's gcc 4.9.1,
I tried and
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:25:08 PM UTC+1, parisse wrote:
Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here?
I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the
fastest: 0.02s on my Mac, vs about 1s for (proven) modular/p-adic.
sage 6.3 returns the answer
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Harald Schilly
harald.schi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:25:08 PM UTC+1, parisse wrote:
Just curious: what is the algorithm used by sage here?
I have tried Bareiss, modular and p-adic with giac, and Bareiss seems the
fastest: 0.02s on
Ok, so probably a little late (seem to be closed), and I'm supper not used
to track, so I'll comment here.
Looking at code
in
http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/commit/?id=2fc399e25960514a3164080f800d867696480c49
TEMPLATE_PATH could technically be a list of path, as IPython uses Jinja
With which money?
Funding money. If that is not allowed formally, convince funders.
In fact, in particular cases active testing was already done by some Sage
developers,
which (I do not know this) probably were not explicitly paid for that task.
There is money for travel, why not for QA?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Jakob Kroeker kroe...@uni-math.gwdg.de wrote:
With which money?
Funding money. If that is not allowed formally, convince funders.
In fact, in particular cases active testing was already done by some Sage
developers,
which (I do not know this) probably were
The p-adic algorithm is indeed very well known (and implemented in giac).
But my point is that Bareiss is faster here (the matrix has huge
coefficients but is small), even if you don't care to prove that the
determinant is correct once you have (probably) found the last invariant
factor and
By coincidence I just found that the function GCD_list
in sage.rings.integer was coded to return one for an
empty list.
Fix (needs review!) at
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17257
Samuel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To
Hey...that would be great to add this to Sage...Personally, I think a lot
better combination would be Sage + cymath.com http://www.cymath.com/.
Have you used this site? The site does a fantastic job of explaining how
to solve problems step by step.
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:00:52 PM
On 2014-10-29, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
--=_Part_5637_1547295187.1414591060718
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:45:15 PM UTC, kcrisman wrote:
See also http://wiki.sagemath.org/SupportedPlatforms which I minimally
updated with
I can't even test tickets on OSX without the gcc update, because our only
buildbot is running on 10.10.
IMHO the only thing that CAN wait is beautification of the scripts or
repacking the gcc tarball to save some disk space...
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:26:28 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik
Hi Anne,
I agree with Dima in that it would be great to have some of the basic ring
theory available in improved. There are some basic deficiencies with
(Laurent) polynomial rings, especially in more than one variable and it
would great if all of the problems with quite basic rings could be
30 matches
Mail list logo
